"Without God... "
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-08-2011, 08:40 PM
 
RE: "Without God... "
(24-08-2011 03:14 PM)cufflink Wrote:  Finally, I've gotta tell you: Although I disagree with virtually everything you say, I was ready to give you points for exhibiting poise and grace in a hostile environment. But the above quote gives me chills. You're a scary dude.
(24-08-2011 04:01 PM)nontheocrat Wrote:  From the things he is saying here about justifying killing and atrocities if god wills it, I'm wondering if Theo is serious or trolling. I don't see how anyone could seriously think that way and be sane.

I don't think he's trolling. He made that disgusting argument in another thread, continuing the kind of reasoning summed up in this post. He's sane, just at a dead end with another sad excuse for an argument and incapable of accepting it.

It does take courage to speak out in a place where most people don't agree with you, and I had some respect for that when I first noticed him. I lost that as soon as he clarified his position on the bear poster, and my opinion of him sank further when he brought up this argument about ownership of humans in a previous thread. What I see is not a display of courage, but arrogance and condescension rivaling that of the WBC.
Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2011, 09:27 PM
RE: "Without God... "
The creepy thing is... I've heard otherwise rational people advocate this kind of thing. And I don't mean your average kind of rational person. I mean I was having an argument with a math major, and a physics professor. And even they advocated it.

However, they at least had the decency to sound ashamed of what they were saying. They admitted it only as I pressed them, and they tried to excuse it. I wonder if theophillius isn't typing that reluctantly. If he isn't, he's scum, but if he is, then there's still a person inside of him, and he's suffering from severe cognitive dissonance, trying to square two contradictory beliefs. I really don't know what to say to him, if that's the case.

But I'll try. Theophillius, you are advocating slavery. And you know it. You know that slavery is wrong. You don't have to reject god, there are plenty who believe in a god who don't feel we are his property, with whom he can do as he likes. If you still believe in a god, then listen to those who believe in a more loving god, not a slave-owner.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-08-2011, 08:36 AM
RE: "Without God... "
On the other hand, do we need some god to tell us to kill an enemy? No: we do it for country, king, rebel leader, street gang, tribe or faction. We kill for a cause, or because it's easier than defecting or deserting. We join armed groups as a career choice or to make a statement or to escape from a miserable life. We kill by proxy, every time we send out the army or riot police or convict a prisoner. We do it in mobs when inflamed by some rabble-rouser. Individually, we kill our neighbours, colleagues, business partners, spouses, parents, children, and random strangers. We kill for money, for status, for revenge, for rage, for jealousy, for pleasure and by accident.

We are a killer species, both predatory and competitive. Saying "Thou shalt not kill" to a tribe of humans is much the same as telling it to pack of wolves.
"Yeah, right," they answer, "we don't kill.*"

* Except when we think it's the right thing to do, or we lose our temper or we're crazy or we have something to gain. The god factor is really a minor addition.

If you pray to anything, you're prey to anything.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-08-2011, 09:47 AM
RE: "Without God... "
(24-08-2011 01:39 PM)Zach Wrote:  Convince me that the kind of ownership you describe leads to the ability to dictate morals to that which is "owned". And how creating a sentient being confers ownership. Before you answer, please look up "special pleading" and try to avoid it, okay?
I can't prove it. It is something that seems to me to be so evident that it doesn't require proof.

The information in ancient libraries came from real minds of real people. The far more complex information in cells came from the far more intelligent mind of God.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-08-2011, 10:36 AM (This post was last modified: 25-08-2011 10:37 AM by TheBeardedDude.)
RE: "Without God... "
It isn't. I have a cat but it is not moral for me to kill it or beat it. And if I truly love that cat why would I ever do that? If god loves us why would he ever do anything to harm us? Aside from the "we have free will to make our own choices" excuse. If god is omnipotent then he already knows what we will do before we do it. So he punishes us because he let us screw up? He does not sound like a perfect or caring being.
And you can't prove it but the evidence is so obvious it needs no proof? Sounds like a bad excuse to me.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-08-2011, 11:31 AM
RE: "Without God... "
Quote: I can't prove it. It is something that seems to me to be so evident that it doesn't require proof.

As stated earlier...how are you a good judge of your own thoughts? If framed in a way you might comprehend, how can you tell the difference between commands from god and commands from satan?

He's not the Messiah. He's a very naughty boy! -Brian's mum
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-08-2011, 12:47 PM
RE: "Without God... "
(25-08-2011 11:31 AM)Cardinal Smurf Wrote:  As stated earlier...how are you a good judge of your own thoughts? If framed in a way you might comprehend, how can you tell the difference between commands from god and commands from satan?

...or hallucinations?
Joan of Arc gets burned; Gail Robbins is incarcerated; George Bush retires with a big smirk and bigger fortune.
Go, figure!

If you pray to anything, you're prey to anything.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-08-2011, 07:45 PM
 
RE: "Without God... "
(25-08-2011 09:47 AM)theophilus Wrote:  
(24-08-2011 01:39 PM)Zach Wrote:  Convince me that the kind of ownership you describe leads to the ability to dictate morals to that which is "owned". And how creating a sentient being confers ownership. Before you answer, please look up "special pleading" and try to avoid it, okay?
I can't prove it. It is something that seems to me to be so evident that it doesn't require proof.

Then provide evidence. If you believe that it's "so evident that it doesn't require proof" then you should have no problem explaining your evidence. However, this seems to be something that requires a logical proof/argument. You want to list it as a premise for your other assertions, but we won't accept it. Justify your premise.

However, I get the impression that you meant to say "I can't prove it or provide evidence. It is something that I find so intuitively appealing that I want to assume it's true." If by "evident" you mean "self-evident" or "intuitive," the extent of your argument is "God owns us and that gives him the right to dictate our morals because it just does." That's completely fallacious and as good as simply admitting you have absolutely no case. "It just does" needs to be replaced with something that everyone accepts as true, or something justified by something everyone accepts as true, etc. Provide some basis for your claim if you think it has one, or if it doesn't, then save everyone a futile argument and admit that it's baseless.

(24-08-2011 09:27 PM)Sines Wrote:  However, they at least had the decency to sound ashamed of what they were saying. They admitted it only as I pressed them, and they tried to excuse it. I wonder if theophillius isn't typing that reluctantly. If he isn't, he's scum, but if he is, then there's still a person inside of him, and he's suffering from severe cognitive dissonance, trying to square two contradictory beliefs. I really don't know what to say to him, if that's the case.

That's true, and I will try to keep that in mind more often when having a discussion like this. My own father said something similar, although not as extreme, in an argument we had over this very topic. It's disgusting, and there's something wrong with a person who can't recognize that, but I was a Christian too and I can remember what it's like trying to rationalize certain concepts. I shouldn't be so quick to judge, and Theophilus still deserves the benefit of the doubt as far as his intentions are concerned.
Quote this message in a reply
25-08-2011, 08:13 PM
RE: "Without God... "
(24-08-2011 03:05 AM)Zach Wrote:  One of the most irritating arguments I hear are the ones that go "Without God, there would be no basis for morality, there would be no meaning to life, etc."

...

So, we'll start with no assumptions about morality. What situations would bring about moral absolutes/objective morals? If there is an omni-whatever perfect deity, and he makes a number of declarations about what is moral, what gives these declarations any weight?

"Without the bible, there is no morality." That's like saying without the dictionary, words don't have definitions. I agree, it's irritating.

The rest of your argument is summed up nicely by the Euthyphro dilemma. Does God command us to do things because they are good? Then there is an objective morality. Or are things good because God commands them? Then anything He commands is arbitrarily good, and Christians have to explain why things like slavery, genocide, or misogyny are bad things despite God commanding them.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-08-2011, 09:24 PM
 
RE: "Without God... "
(25-08-2011 08:13 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  "Without the bible, there is no morality." That's like saying without the dictionary, words don't have definitions. I agree, it's irritating.

The rest of your argument is summed up nicely by the Euthyphro dilemma. Does God command us to do things because they are good? Then there is an objective morality. Or are things good because God commands them? Then anything He commands is arbitrarily good, and Christians have to explain why things like slavery, genocide, or misogyny are bad things despite God commanding them.

Indeed, I think most of what I said comes from the Euthyphro dilemma and various peoples' explanations of it. The main problem I'm concerned with is communicating this to a theist, because it seems like so many of the disagreements over arguments like this come down to an inability to get through to the other side's way of thinking.

Someone who accepts that there's an objective morality given by God and feels that without it morality is meaningless is not going to accept most criticisms of the idea. The way they approach the problem, and assumptions they have coming into the argument, will make it difficult for someone who thinks about it differently and lacks those assumptions to argue with them. At least that's what I think - a lot of religious arguments can be resolved by working on communication.

Maybe I should try posting this where it will have a more critical audience, provided I can find one where they're also reasonable. I was hoping for constructive criticism so that I can make it more concise and less ambiguous, or fix any flawed logic that it may contain.
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: