How do we approach a new proposition?

Create a topic and discuss! No subject is off limits, but moderators have the right to remove asshat posts. What's an asshat post? Selling stuff, trolling, harassing--the usual stuff you don't want to see either. Happy posting!
User avatar
SEG
Posts: 2143
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: How do we approach a new proposition?

Post by SEG » Sat Mar 16, 2019 4:11 am

Why not have simple definitions that most humans could all identify with? For example:

Bad = Something that causes unnecessary suffering and diminishes well being.

Good = Something that is helpful for the flourishing of humanity, causes no harm to yourself, others or the environment and minimises pain and suffering.

Do God's commands on something like homosexuality propagate justice and equality? Nope. Even though homosexuality doesn't harm anyone and involves people loving and caring for each other it's somehow "wrong". Gay marriage is condemned by most Christians, even though nothing is written against it in their instruction book. Thankfully when it was given a democratic vote in the USA and other countries like Australia it was passed to give these bullied people equal rights alongside the rights of heterosexual Christian loving couples. What was the dire consequences of these actions? Did the sky fall in? Did our society collapse in immoral ruins? Nope, it just meant that large groups of formally marginalised people finally had equality.

Could God's commands cause harm and suffering and still be "good" by definition? Yep. Could God have hatred for all other beings and still be "good" by definition? Absolutely!

In Christianity, God is good only by definition. God's nature has no other meaning other than what God is supposed to be. His character could be cruel, violent, intolerant and yet mesh perfectly in line with what Christians believe is his good and perfect nature. IOW whatever he does, no matter how inconsistent with the truth values of all other ethical systems, it will still be good. And that sucks deeply.
Premise One: If a compassionate God exists, then he would do things just as a compassionate person would.
Premise Two: God doesn't do things as a compassionate person would.
Conclusion: Therefore, a compassionate God does not exist.

Og3
Posts: 965
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2018 6:41 am

Re: How do we approach a new proposition?

Post by Og3 » Sat Mar 16, 2019 7:58 am

Rian wrote:
Fri Mar 15, 2019 7:46 am
Og3 wrote:
Mon Mar 11, 2019 7:31 pm
Rian wrote:
Mon Mar 11, 2019 7:03 am

Are you in mid/northern California, Og3? I'm a SoCal girl, and so glad to be back home after an 11-year sojourn in the (neighboring) desert of Arizona, where you can literally fry an egg on the sidewalk in the summer *gag*
Salinas, near Monterey.

What part of SoCal?
Ventura county, north of LA.
Not exactly neighbors. But I used to drive through there on 101 going to San Diego, back in the day.
EGO TE ABSOLVO, and there's nothing you can do about it.

Og3
Posts: 965
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2018 6:41 am

Re: How do we approach a new proposition?

Post by Og3 » Sat Mar 16, 2019 8:34 am

SEG wrote:
Fri Mar 15, 2019 12:13 pm
SEG wrote:
Thu Mar 14, 2019 1:46 pm
Are you saying that all Baptist church members haven't the same morals, even though they are taught the same objective morals? Isn't that strange? Is that why there are much many more Christians in jail than atheists, even when allowing for the general population levels of both? It looks like these objective moral commands are falling on deaf ears, or they were flawed from the beginning.
Og3 wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 7:26 pm
No, I am saying that not all Baptists, of their own free will, choose to follow the objective morals that they know to be true.
Why would anyone risk their eternal salvation by breaking your god's moral commands if they knew them to be true? It seems to me that either the commands were not compelling or their god was not believable. Both views don't bode well for the messages that were sent or the veracity of the sender.
that can be shown to be fallacious by a simple observation: People run red lights. Now the consequences (deadly collisions, expensive citations) are well known. And yet people do so.

We cannot from that say that the red light and/or stop sign do not well and accurately express the intent of the local authorities in a compelling and believable way. It also does not reflect poorly against the veracity of the message to stop. It merely means that some people choose to take the risk.

On the question proper, why do people sin despite knowing God's moral code?
1. Because we are humans and are weak. Paul addresses this in Romans 7, where he remarks that he often finds himself doing the wrong things and not doing the right things.
2. For Arminians (a theological position), because they seem to have ample opportunity to repent, and are weak humans.
3. For Calvinists (a theological position) and modified Arminians, because they are secure in the "perseverance of the saints" and are weak humans.
4. Because we are not yet perfected.
More Christians in Jail than Atheists? Well, let's assume that to be a correct statistic (I'm not going to bother holding a survey).

You don't need to, they already have done at least one. The U.S. Federal Bureau of Prisons released an April 2013 survey of 218,167 prisoners that reports .02% of prisoners are atheists. You read that right. Not 2%, or even .2 percent, but .02% of American prisoners are atheists.
keep reading...
Which is even lower than what Ricky Gervais quipped on Twitter;
If all the Atheists & Agnostics left America, they'd lose 93% of The National Academy of Sciences & less than 1% of the prison population.
Yeah, and 87.2% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
First, how were Christians and Atheists identified? By self reference? By stated preference at intake? I've actually heard of inmates identifying as Jewish because the kosher meals are better; I've also heard that one local jail has the policy that if you weren't Jewish when you went in, you can't convert.
Yeah it can be read into whatever you like. But it sure shoots a hole into
Psalm 14 King James Version (KJV)
14 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

2 The Lord looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God.

3 They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
which asserts that atheists are fools and vile people. This goes a long way to debunk the myth that a person can't be good without a god.
Actually, it asserts that fools are atheists, not that atheists are fools. Poodles are dogs, but dogs are not all poodles.
It also means that 99.98% of U.S. federal prisoners committing crimes and going to prison are religious and not atheists.
This bears on the statistic because a person can be considered "Christian" if he or she was born in a Latin American country, for example, regardless of actual religious practice if any. Also, in some regions (middle east, for example) anyone who is neither Muslim nor Jewish is automatically "Christian." Thus how the groups were defined and where the statistic originated bear on its accuracy.
It can also mean that atheists that had parents that were Catholic for example would also list as Catholic, even if they were actually atheists.
Which would also help to make the statistic inaccurate.
Second, assuming the survey to be accurately categorized, why are there more Christians in Jail? Is it because more followers of Christ rob banks? Or is it because Jail is a good place for introspection, repentance, and religious conversion? Further, suppose that the survey looked only at jail intake stated religions: This could mean that Christians commit more crimes, or it could mean that Christians, having committed a crime, are more likely to confess or to plead guilty. And cetera.

But assuming that it means that more Christians commit crimes: So what?
It may also mean that Christians were less educated and got caught or came from lower income families that couldn't afford decent legal representation. Look, I'm not saying that being religious means that you are more likely to be a crim, but rather atheists aren't all low lives without morals.
You keep saying that, but no one's arguing against it. You strike me as a very moral man, and I'm not saying that you, or most atheists, or all atheists, or even most people who aren't Christians are not moral.

No one says that Atheists can't make and keep rules. The question is whether those rules are meaningful.
If you become religious just to be a better person, that ain't necessarily the case.
The only reason that I would wish for ANYONE to become a Christian is that the person has considered the matter carefully and has found Christianity to be the most reasonable inference. Becoming a Christian in order to be a better person would be a silly thing to do. It would be like joining the fire department to get invited to hot parties.
Don't get me started about how the most Christian nation in the world is also the most violent. Have a look at the most atheist countries in the world like Denmark, Sweden, Finland and Australia. Check out the numbers of violent deaths compared to the holier than thou USA.
Is that the stumbling block, Mate? Do you think that Christians and the Good old USA are judging you?

Why would we do that? What do we have that you don't? We Christians all admit that we're dirty rotten sinners, and our founder said in one of his greatest speeches, "Judge not lest ye be judged."

If you think that Christians, or the "Holier than thou USA" are judging you, I assure you, that feeling is coming from somewhere else. Our entire religion is built around the idea of NOT being judgmental. Remember, to be Judgmental, you first have to be mental. The woman at the well, the woman caught in the act of adultery, the Gadarene demoniac -- even Judas. Did you ever think about the Last Supper, and Jesus saying, "One of you here will betray me?" Why didn't everyone point at Judas and say, "That guy, he's the one?" Well, because they ALL had problems, and Jesus loved each of them, including Judas. So the betrayer blended in with the other dirty rotten sinners.

Have you really never heard Jesus called, "The Friend of Sinners?"

I'm not judging you, SEG. I'm not allowed to.
The entire point of Christianity is NOT that you're supposed to be a moral person: It's that you've failed in being a moral person, and thus God covers your shortcomings through His own sacrifice on your behalf. You are thus not under the law -- not expected to be morally perfect -- but are under grace, that is, covered by Christ's perfection. Which is not a license to keep sinning (Romans 6-8) but instead reason to turn from sin and try to live as God intended: Micah 6:8 -- Be just, love mercy, and walk humbly before God.

So the statistic fails to make any kind of point, and even if it did, so what?
What I'm saying are the absolute morals that you are supposedly receiving from your deity aren't working too well, are they? Imagine if 99.98% of U.S. federal prisoners were to be rehabilitated using humanistic educational classes. We might be able to make the Earth a better place OG. We just need to get more atheists into your political system. Turn up your speakers and chill: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOgFZfRVaww
It's not about making people follow rules, SEG. I'm sure I'm saying this clearly... It's about people realizing that they've got a moral problem, and taking the first step to fix it. It's just like an alcoholic having to admit that he's an alcoholic before he can start treating it.

I'm not sure why this isn't becoming clear...

But if you want Youtube, here's one... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A14THPoc4-4
EGO TE ABSOLVO, and there's nothing you can do about it.

Og3
Posts: 965
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2018 6:41 am

Re: How do we approach a new proposition?

Post by Og3 » Sat Mar 16, 2019 8:46 am

SEG wrote:
Sat Mar 16, 2019 4:11 am
Why not have simple definitions that most humans could all identify with? For example:

Bad = Something that causes unnecessary suffering and diminishes well being.
How do we know if suffering is necessary or unnecessary? How do we know what well being truly is?
Good = Something that is helpful for the flourishing of humanity,
Is it truly good for humanity to flourish? What if the flourishing of mankind causes the destruction of other species?
causes no harm to yourself,
Down to what level? there's a great paradox in that simple phrase
others or the environment
and what if not harming the environment prevents the flourishing of humanity?
and minimises pain and suffering.
Whose pain and whose suffering? What if minimizing my pain means someone else will suffer, and vice versa?
Do God's commands on something like homosexuality propagate justice and equality? Nope.
And where do you get this idea of justice? Is it from within yourself, Euthyphyro, and therefore arbitrary? Or does it come from higher than yourself, a rule that even the gods must obey?
Even though homosexuality doesn't harm anyone and involves people loving and caring for each other it's somehow "wrong". Gay marriage is condemned by most Christians, even though nothing is written against it in their instruction book. Thankfully when it was given a democratic vote in the USA and other countries like Australia it was passed to give these bullied people equal rights alongside the rights of heterosexual Christian loving couples.
Actually, here in California, the people democratically voted against homosexual marriage in two separate elections, going so far as to amend the state constitution, but that decision was struck down by a court -- meaning it was decided by an oligarchy, not a democracy.
What was the dire consequences of these actions? Did the sky fall in? Did our society collapse in immoral ruins? Nope, it just meant that large groups of formally marginalised people finally had equality.
So then the purpose of marriage, in your opinion, is to make people equal? But that is a coney cavity for another day.
Could God's commands cause harm and suffering and still be "good" by definition? Yep. Could God have hatred for all other beings and still be "good" by definition? Absolutely!

In Christianity, God is good only by definition. God's nature has no other meaning other than what God is supposed to be. His character could be cruel, violent, intolerant and yet mesh perfectly in line with what Christians believe is his good and perfect nature. IOW whatever he does, no matter how inconsistent with the truth values of all other ethical systems, it will still be good. And that sucks deeply.
You still don't see the paradox in saying that, do you?
EGO TE ABSOLVO, and there's nothing you can do about it.

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 2143
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: How do we approach a new proposition?

Post by SEG » Sat Mar 16, 2019 12:19 pm

SEG wrote:
Fri Mar 15, 2019 12:13 pm
Why would anyone risk their eternal salvation by breaking your god's moral commands if they knew them to be true? It seems to me that either the commands were not compelling or their god was not believable. Both views don't bode well for the messages that were sent or the veracity of the sender.
Og3 wrote:
Sat Mar 16, 2019 8:34 am
that can be shown to be fallacious by a simple observation: People run red lights. Now the consequences (deadly collisions, expensive citations) are well known. And yet people do so.

We cannot from that say that the red light and/or stop sign do not well and accurately express the intent of the local authorities in a compelling and believable way. It also does not reflect poorly against the veracity of the message to stop. It merely means that some people choose to take the risk
Not a good analogy, you are comparing local authorities to a supposedly perfect god and getting a ticket or collisions to the bliss of eternal salvation. If I was a Christian and knew for sure that the claims about God were true, I would study my Bible every waking hour and never risk breaking ANY of his commands. Yet most Christians break his commands every day and the criminal ones commit the more serious offences like stealing and murder. The risk of God looking over your shoulder doesn't seem to worry the vast majority of Christians, which tells me most don't believe the consequences of failing to follow his commands will affect their lives. Your god is not only unbelievable to atheists, he must also be unbelievable to most Christians.
On the question proper, why do people sin despite knowing God's moral code?
1. Because we are humans and are weak. Paul addresses this in Romans 7, where he remarks that he often finds himself doing the wrong things and not doing the right things.
2. For Arminians (a theological position), because they seem to have ample opportunity to repent, and are weak humans.
3. For Calvinists (a theological position) and modified Arminians, because they are secure in the "perseverance of the saints" and are weak humans.
4. Because we are not yet perfected.
You could add perhaps the main one;
5. Unconvinced of the consequences
More Christians in Jail than Atheists? Well, let's assume that to be a correct statistic (I'm not going to bother holding a survey).
SEG wrote:
Thu Mar 14, 2019 1:46 pm
You don't need to, they already have done at least one. The U.S. Federal Bureau of Prisons released an April 2013 survey of 218,167 prisoners that reports .02% of prisoners are atheists. You read that right. Not 2%, or even .2 percent, but .02% of American prisoners are atheists.
Which is even lower than what Ricky Gervais quipped on Twitter;
If all the Atheists & Agnostics left America, they'd lose 93% of The National Academy of Sciences & less than 1% of the prison population.
Yeah, and 87.2% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
It looks like he was 1% in error regarding:
Larson and Witham (1998) found that 92% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences reject a belief in God or higher power.
https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentra ... -6434-6-33
and his 1% of atheists in jails was vastly inflated.
Actually, it asserts that fools are atheists, not that atheists are fools. Poodles are dogs, but dogs are not all poodles.
God's word is a lie too:
there is none that doeth good.
Lots of atheists do good, despite their undeserved reputation in the US and other countries.
It also means that 99.98% of U.S. federal prisoners committing crimes and going to prison are religious and not atheists.
This bears on the statistic because a person can be considered "Christian" if he or she was born in a Latin American country, for example, regardless of actual religious practice if any. Also, in some regions (middle east, for example) anyone who is neither Muslim nor Jewish is automatically "Christian." Thus how the groups were defined and where the statistic originated bear on its accuracy.
It can also mean that atheists that had parents that were Catholic for example would also list as Catholic, even if they were actually atheists
Which would also help to make the statistic inaccurate.
I agree on that one.
Second, assuming the survey to be accurately categorized, why are there more Christians in Jail? Is it because more followers of Christ rob banks? Or is it because Jail is a good place for introspection, repentance, and religious conversion? Further, suppose that the survey looked only at jail intake stated religions: This could mean that Christians commit more crimes, or it could mean that Christians, having committed a crime, are more likely to confess or to plead guilty. And cetera.

But assuming that it means that more Christians commit crimes: So what?
It may also mean that Christians were less educated and got caught or came from lower income families that couldn't afford decent legal representation. Look, I'm not saying that being religious means that you are more likely to be a crim, but rather atheists aren't all low lives without morals.
You keep saying that, but no one's arguing against it. You strike me as a very moral man, and I'm not saying that you, or most atheists, or all atheists, or even most people who aren't Christians are not moral. No one says that Atheists can't make and keep rules. The question is whether those rules are meaningful.
Correct. The same goes for your god's commands.
If you become religious just to be a better person, that ain't necessarily the case.
The only reason that I would wish for ANYONE to become a Christian is that the person has considered the matter carefully and has found Christianity to be the most reasonable inference. Becoming a Christian in order to be a better person would be a silly thing to do.
Yet a lot of people do it for exactly that reason and go to church just because they are expected to go by their family and friends.
Don't get me started about how the most Christian nation in the world is also the most violent. Have a look at the most atheist countries in the world like Denmark, Sweden, Finland and Australia. Check out the numbers of violent deaths compared to the holier than thou USA.
Is that the stumbling block, Mate? Do you think that Christians and the Good old USA are judging you?

Why would we do that? What do we have that you don't? We Christians all admit that we're dirty rotten sinners, and our founder said in one of his greatest speeches, "Judge not lest ye be judged."

If you think that Christians, or the "Holier than thou USA" are judging you, I assure you, that feeling is coming from somewhere else.
No, it's got nothing to do about judging me, I don't care about that. I said "holier than thou" because I was making a point that the holy are in fact more immorally violent.
Our entire religion is built around the idea of NOT being judgmental. Remember, to be Judgmental, you first have to be mental. The woman at the well, the woman caught in the act of adultery, the Gadarene demoniac -- even Judas. Did you ever think about the Last Supper, and Jesus saying, "One of you here will betray me?" Why didn't everyone point at Judas and say, "That guy, he's the one?" Well, because they ALL had problems, and Jesus loved each of them, including Judas. So the betrayer blended in with the other dirty rotten sinners.

Have you really never heard Jesus called, "The Friend of Sinners?"
Then why do you judge homosexuals?
I'm not judging you, SEG. I'm not allowed to.
By whose fiat, the biggest intolerant judge of them all?
The entire point of Christianity is NOT that you're supposed to be a moral person: It's that you've failed in being a moral person, and thus God covers your shortcomings through His own sacrifice on your behalf.
Which is a morally vile concept, an innocent person should never take the blame for a guilty person. What would you think of a foreign dictator that sacrificed his innocent son in a public square so that his country's subjects should be absolved of all their crimes? The original sin that he died for was a vile concept as well. Entrapping your own innocent kids and then throwing them out of your home is morally bankrupt too.
You are thus not under the law -- not expected to be morally perfect -- but are under grace, that is, covered by Christ's perfection.
Too bad he wasn't perfect if he existed and was a deity. As a human he had to wear our faults.
Which is not a license to keep sinning (Romans 6-8) but instead reason to turn from sin and try to live as God intended: Micah 6:8 -- Be just, love mercy, and walk humbly before God.
I walk humbly beside no-one, I treat everyone as my equal.
So the statistic fails to make any kind of point, and even if it did, so what?
What I'm saying are the absolute morals that you are supposedly receiving from your deity aren't working too well, are they? Imagine if 99.98% of U.S. federal prisoners were to be rehabilitated using humanistic educational classes. We might be able to make the Earth a better place OG. We just need to get more atheists into your political system. Turn up your speakers and chill: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOgFZfRVaww
It's not about making people follow rules, SEG. I'm sure I'm saying this clearly... It's about people realizing that they've got a moral problem, and taking the first step to fix it. It's just like an alcoholic having to admit that he's an alcoholic before he can start treating it.
Ah, the typical Christian assumption, we are all born sick and we need God's magical cure. I'm not buying that at all.
I'm not sure why this isn't becoming clear...

But if you want Youtube, here's one... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A14THPoc4-4
The trouble with that video is that it assumes that God could do no wrong and his nature is perfectly good. Drowning most of the world's population, committing genocide including babies and innocent animals, endorsement of slavery etc is morally corrupt. God ordered people put to death for minor offences such as consulting a witch, having a different religion, gathering sticks on the Sabbath and for being disobedient child.

As stated previously, your god could do morally corrupt acts and hate everybody and still be good according to you. The concept of him being "good" is meaningless.

Back atcher: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaMcMIuN_XQ
Premise One: If a compassionate God exists, then he would do things just as a compassionate person would.
Premise Two: God doesn't do things as a compassionate person would.
Conclusion: Therefore, a compassionate God does not exist.

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 2143
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: How do we approach a new proposition?

Post by SEG » Sat Mar 16, 2019 1:07 pm

SEG wrote:
Sat Mar 16, 2019 4:11 am
Why not have simple definitions that most humans could all identify with? For example:

Bad = Something that causes unnecessary suffering and diminishes well being.

Og3 wrote:
Sat Mar 16, 2019 8:46 am
How do we know if suffering is necessary or unnecessary? How do we know what well being truly is?
It's straight forward isn't it? Would you know for example that torturing a kitten is unnecessary? Well being is the state of being well, having social satisfaction etc.
Good = Something that is helpful for the flourishing of humanity,
Is it truly good for humanity to flourish? What if the flourishing of mankind causes the destruction of other species?
That shouldn't worry you as a Christian, you think humanity is at the top of the food chain and the carer of all other animals, don't you? If we are talking about humanity to flourish as a whole, in general the other species must be secondary to our survival.

I can't see any circumstance where the flourishing of mankind as a whole is not a positive one, but lots of circumstances where the diminishing of mankind is seen as negative. If we run out of land space for living in the future and decided to make mankind flourish on Antarctica at the expense of other plants and animals, would that be a problem for you? If we decide to escalate the deforestation in South America to place cheap housing estates at the expense of large destruction of other species, or for example to allow the Japanese to farm out whales to death, that is a different story.
causes no harm to yourself,
Down to what level? there's a great paradox in that simple phrase
To a sensible level
others or the environment
and what if not harming the environment prevents the flourishing of humanity?
Well that should prevail if taken as a whole.
and minimises pain and suffering.
Whose pain and whose suffering? What if minimizing my pain means someone else will suffer, and vice versa?
That's why we have a court system
Do God's commands on something like homosexuality propagate justice and equality? Nope.
And where do you get this idea of justice? Is it from within yourself, Euthyphyro, and therefore arbitrary?
Yep. We all have our own sense of what is fair and what is not fair and a working legal system.
Or does it come from higher than yourself, a rule that even the gods must obey?
No, universal objective morals, just like gods don't exist
Even though homosexuality doesn't harm anyone and involves people loving and caring for each other it's somehow "wrong". Gay marriage is condemned by most Christians, even though nothing is written against it in their instruction book. Thankfully when it was given a democratic vote in the USA and other countries like Australia it was passed to give these bullied people equal rights alongside the rights of heterosexual Christian loving couples.
Actually, here in California, the people democratically voted against homosexual marriage in two separate elections, going so far as to amend the state constitution, but that decision was struck down by a court -- meaning it was decided by an oligarchy, not a democracy.
Thank your god that the Supreme Court of California found that barring same-sex couples from marriage violated the state's Constitution. Even bigoted Christians that were against it would sooner or later realise that it is wrong to violate their own state's Constitution.
What was the dire consequences of these actions? Did the sky fall in? Did our society collapse in immoral ruins? Nope, it just meant that large groups of formally marginalised people finally had equality.
So then the purpose of marriage, in your opinion, is to make people equal? But that is a coney cavity for another day.
No, I believe in equal rights for all, especially when rights concerning marriage and caring and loving others doesn't harm anyone else.
Could God's commands cause harm and suffering and still be "good" by definition? Yep. Could God have hatred for all other beings and still be "good" by definition? Absolutely!

In Christianity, God is good only by definition. God's nature has no other meaning other than what God is supposed to be. His character could be cruel, violent, intolerant and yet mesh perfectly in line with what Christians believe is his good and perfect nature. IOW whatever he does, no matter how inconsistent with the truth values of all other ethical systems, it will still be good. And that sucks deeply.
You still don't see the paradox in saying that, do you?
What paradox?
Premise One: If a compassionate God exists, then he would do things just as a compassionate person would.
Premise Two: God doesn't do things as a compassionate person would.
Conclusion: Therefore, a compassionate God does not exist.

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 2143
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: How do we approach a new proposition?

Post by SEG » Sun Mar 17, 2019 12:59 am

If you are saying that if your god consistently does things that are at odds with the flourishing of mankind, to the detriment of our wellbeing and still can be called good, then it is time to either look for another god to worship, or realise that gods don't exist.
Premise One: If a compassionate God exists, then he would do things just as a compassionate person would.
Premise Two: God doesn't do things as a compassionate person would.
Conclusion: Therefore, a compassionate God does not exist.

Og3
Posts: 965
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2018 6:41 am

Re: How do we approach a new proposition?

Post by Og3 » Tue Mar 19, 2019 12:28 am

The point was that your "simple and obvious" definitions are neither simple nor obvious, and as you say, "That's why we have a court system."

You can't on the one hand tell me that the right morals are obvious, and at the same time tell me that the right morals are subjective, and "That's why we have a court system."

Come on, SEG, you've been reading up on logic, so you must see the problem there.
EGO TE ABSOLVO, and there's nothing you can do about it.

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 2143
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: How do we approach a new proposition?

Post by SEG » Tue Mar 19, 2019 4:29 am

Og3 wrote:
Tue Mar 19, 2019 12:28 am
The point was that your "simple and obvious" definitions are neither simple nor obvious, and as you say, "That's why we have a court system."

You can't on the one hand tell me that the right morals are obvious, and at the same time tell me that the right morals are subjective, and "That's why we have a court system."

Come on, SEG, you've been reading up on logic, so you must see the problem there.
Hey, I'm not saying that ALL right morals are obvious, we argue about that all the time in the courts. Was it murder or was it killing in order to self defend? I actually said, "Why not have simple definitions that most humans could all identify with? So to torture kids for fun would be a good example of what most humans would understand to be a bad thing to do in all circumstances. A person that does torture kids for fun may not be "bad" or as Christians say "evil" but a severely mentally handicapped person convinced that God gave him toys to play with in order to learn what not to do to them.

Christianity and most other religions can't come up with broad definitions of right and wrong. They get given black and white commands, 'like thou shalt not make graven images" (which is missing in the Catholic version, unless you go to the 1st commandment and re-jig it). What sort of dumb law is that anyway? What's it mean, don't make images like wooden crucifixions or does it mean taking photos and paintings of other gods on your holidays to foreign countries? Surely God could have come up with something better than that? How about don't abuse small children, women or keep slaves? Oh that's right, your god has no trouble with those! He even endorses it!

When evaluating what's right and wrong, you don't need a god in the background guiding you what to do. Sensible people that have good educations and mentors can work it out for themselves.
Premise One: If a compassionate God exists, then he would do things just as a compassionate person would.
Premise Two: God doesn't do things as a compassionate person would.
Conclusion: Therefore, a compassionate God does not exist.

Og3
Posts: 965
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2018 6:41 am

Re: How do we approach a new proposition?

Post by Og3 » Tue Mar 19, 2019 7:44 pm

Straw man.

No one says, "We are incapable of composing a system of ethics, and we have no empathy, therefore we need a god, so let's invent one."
No one says, "We are incapable of composing a system of ethics, and we have no empathy, therefore we need a god."

And in fact, the only people incapable of empathy are sociopaths, by reason of a mental defect.

The problem is that even though we are CAPABLE of creating systems of ethics, and following them (somewhat), we don't do it. We make a rule that we should not steal, but hey, the insurance company was stealing from me anyway, right? The tax man was stealing from me anyway, right? That guy shouldn't have left his stuff in his garden if he really wanted it. Hey, what are you doing in my garden? Put that stuff down!

If it was common sense not to do wrong, then shows like COPS or Highway Patrol or Border Security would be boring as heck. But what we really do is this: We normalize our own behavior, and so we reach the conclusion that what we do is right, an what everyone else does is wrong.

Now if it wee simply true that there is no god, then it would just be a matter of us all agreeing to one set of rules, and sticking to it. But we keep changing the rules. We can easily point out things that are considered wrong in our society, and then project those backwards 200 years or 1000 years and shake our heads at historical figures over it. I mean, if Marcus Aurelius were such a good Philosopher-King, why didn't he free all the slaves in Rome, huh? Huh? And so forth. If Socrates was so wise, why didn't he know that E=MC^2? Huh? Huh?

Of course you're saying, well, the context in which they lived, that's why.

And that makes my point. If the context in which we live is forever changing, and if the rules are just something we all agreed on, then the rules are always going to be changing. In 1000 years, slavery may be an accepted and "moral" practice by the standards of 3019. Stealing may be an accepted moral practice, just as selected instances of murder by stealth (so long as you weren't caught) were accepted moral practice in Classical Sparta. In fact, a Spartan who had never killed a Heliot would be exiled. &c.

So you're building a castle on a pillar of salt.
EGO TE ABSOLVO, and there's nothing you can do about it.

Post Reply