This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Does creating a sentient being give you the right to mistreat it?

#21hunter_gohanPosted 1/17/2013 5:53:28 PM(edited)
Julian_Caesar posted...
Except that you assumed He existed. And guess what? God is perfect by definition. Like it or not, you can't wave that assumption away and tack it on the end of the argument, as if it didn't exist beforehand. If He wasn't perfect, He wouldn't be God. And for God to exist, He has to be perfect. End of story. I don't know why you're beating your head against this particular brick wall.


I assume Stalin existed. And guess what? Stalin held the title of "Gardener of Human Happiness." Like it or not, you can't wave that assumption away and tack it on the end of the argument, as if it didn't exist beforehand. If he wasn't the Gardener of Human Happiness, he wouldn't be Stalin. And for Stalin to exist, he has to be the Gardener of Human Happiness. End of story. I don't know why you're beating your head against this particular brick wall.

So living under Communist rule as an obedient citizen was equivalent to having a loving relationship with the most perfect being who has ever existed? And Stalin was an omniscient, omnipotent being who created the whole world by merely speaking? Please, enlighten me on this subject.


http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lz2vi28Dgw1r4355oo1_500.png

And yes he was sometimes credited with god-like abilities.

"He was sometimes credited with almost god-like qualities, including the suggestion that he single-handedly won the Second World War. "

Along with holding such titles as:

" He accepted grandiloquent titles (e.g., "Coryphaeus of Science," "Father of Nations," "Brilliant Genius of Humanity," "Great Architect of Communism," "Gardener of Human Happiness," and others), and helped rewrite Soviet history to provide himself a more significant role in the revolution of 1917."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin#Cult_of_personality

What do ya know turns out even if a being is real that doesn't mean everything they ever claimed is the truth.

You're interested in your own brand of truth, nothing more. Until you cast off your own preconceived notions of what can and cannot be true, you will be never be seeking truth. You will be seeking affirmation of what you already believe to be true.


I did. That's how I was able to move to atheism from being a Christian(well technically I stopped off at Wicca for a while but that was before I realized I was merely trying to fill the "hole" that was only there because other people told me it was). Christianity was my preconceived notions. My upbringing wasn't as bad as fudricks, but only by a bit. Literally every single person I knew, save one Jewish family, was Christian. In a family with multiple Nuns and a great aunt that had to convert from Protestantism to Catholicism before marrying into the family.

Interestingly enough, I am in the same boat as you. The difference is that I am fully willing to admit that my perception of truth is dictated by what I choose to believe about truth. You, on the other hand, have been deluded into thinking that "truth" is ONLY attainable by some outside force or system which removes the responsibility of choice from your quest.


I choose to believe that I'm a billionaire....am I now a billionaire?
---
The food that stands on his [Odin's] table he gives to two wolves of his called Geri and Freki. He himself needs no food; wine is for him both drink and meat.
#22SystemafunkPosted 1/18/2013 1:11:42 AM
First off, even if he's real, he could be lying about being all knowing. If he was all-knowing though just because he'd be capable doesn't actually mean that is what he's aiming for.

You're doing the whole 'reference to some specific belief system's God" thing again.

I'm talking about whatever being is the actual creator God, and even then, only assuming it exists. This is not a matter of some being claiming to be God, but a philosophical discussion starting from the assumption of God's existence.
#23inferiorweaselPosted 1/18/2013 2:19:06 AM
NO,

Which is why I felt that EDI should have been the deciding factor. You are confronted with enough questions about how she should take into account her own existence and how she should see herself, that It would have been awesome for her to be the deciding factor.

The star child should have had EDI decide, since she was man's (the newest dominant organic) created Synthetic.
---
Live and Learn / Forgiveness is Divine.
(Read those. If you still feel the same way.... Well, you are redcount. - Vyyk)
#24hunter_gohanPosted 1/21/2013 2:11:33 PM
Systemafunk posted...
I'm talking about whatever being is the actual creator God, and even then, only assuming it exists. This is not a matter of some being claiming to be God, but a philosophical discussion starting from the assumption of God's existence.


Then like I said in the other thread. There's no point to debate. We have no actions from this hypothetical being to even judge, and I refuse to let monotheists co-opt the word god to make only their versions of gods be gods. Men have worship many different gods all throughout the ages and they all didn't share these qualities.
---
The food that stands on his [Odin's] table he gives to two wolves of his called Geri and Freki. He himself needs no food; wine is for him both drink and meat.
#25Julian_CaesarPosted 1/21/2013 6:41:05 PM
From: JonWood007 | #019
God's actions are inconsistent with the definition you present. As I stated a couple other times in the other topic talking about this, a truly perfect God likely would not act the way the Biblical one acts.


And as I stated just as many times in that other topic, you lack the moral perspective necessary to judge God's actions as right or wrong. Even the collective moral awareness of all humans who have ever lived, combined, is not a sufficient moral perspective to judge the actions of God (or rather, the God of the Bible).

From: hunter_gohan | #024
Then like I said in the other thread. There's no point to debate.


Then stop making the argument that God's actions in the Bible are grounds for saying He isn't perfect. I'm certainly not going to bring it up, if you don't.
---
Every day the rest of your life is changed forever.
#26almasbabyPosted 1/25/2013 9:30:45 AM
Didn't the Quarians see the Geth as a threat? They wanted to eliminate them for self preservation. Now Kratos, he had a real beef. The gods screwed him over royally.
#27lastheroPosted 1/25/2013 9:47:16 AM
almasbaby posted...
Didn't the Quarians see the Geth as a threat? They wanted to eliminate them for self preservation.


Sort of, yeah. When the Quarians saw that the Geth were starting to become sentient, they basically overreacted and started to systematically wipe them out. The Geth hadn't shown any hostilities until the Quarians started getting aggressive about it - when the Geth started fighting back, it became too much for the Quarians and they were kicked off their own planet. The Geth weren't really a threat, the Quarians pushed them to being a threat.
---
X-Men: First Class RPG - Welcoming all new players!
[http://s1.zetaboards.com/New_Mutants/index/]
#28hunter_gohanPosted 1/27/2013 9:37:57 PM
Julian_Caesar posted...
From: hunter_gohan | #024
Then like I said in the other thread. There's no point to debate.


Then stop making the argument that God's actions in the Bible are grounds for saying He isn't perfect. I'm certainly not going to bring it up, if you don't.


That's in reference to Systema's tautology of "If a perfect, omnipotent, omniscient, omni-benevolent being was real, then there'd be a perfect, omnipotent, omniscient, omni-benevolent being." Since that is his definition of creator god.

You most certainly can take someone, even a completely fictional character in a book, and judge their actions.
---
The food that stands on his [Odin's] table he gives to two wolves of his called Geri and Freki. He himself needs no food; wine is for him both drink and meat.
#29fudrickPosted 1/27/2013 10:49:57 PM
Julian_Caesar posted...
From: JonWood007 | #019
God's actions are inconsistent with the definition you present. As I stated a couple other times in the other topic talking about this, a truly perfect God likely would not act the way the Biblical one acts.


And as I stated just as many times in that other topic, you lack the moral perspective necessary to judge God's actions as right or wrong. Even the collective moral awareness of all humans who have ever lived, combined, is not a sufficient moral perspective to judge the actions of God (or rather, the God of the Bible).

From: hunter_gohan | #024
Then like I said in the other thread. There's no point to debate.


Then stop making the argument that God's actions in the Bible are grounds for saying He isn't perfect. I'm certainly not going to bring it up, if you don't.


Would you like to respond to my post?
---
Best FCs:
GH1: Decontrol | GH2: Jordan, Hangar 18 | GH80s: Because It's Midnite | GH3: One, Soothsayer | RB2: I Ain't Superstitious
#30Julian_CaesarPosted 1/28/2013 1:04:08 AM
From: hunter_gohan | #028
You most certainly can take someone, even a completely fictional character in a book, and judge their actions.


From a perspective outside the story, perhaps. From a perspective inside the story, no. And we are "inside the story" of this universe, so to speak. We lack the perspective necessary to pass judgment on those actions.

From: fudrick | #029
Would you like to respond to my post?

From: fudrick | #020
I was brought up in an environment where for many years, I had literally never come across the notion that a person could be a non-christian. Feel free to explain where my preconceived notions against christianity and belief in god came from, as a person who initially rejected christianity without even really understanding that that was possible and without realizing exactly what I was doing.


I don't mean "preconceived" as in "rationalism". I mean "preconceived" as in "preassumed before this discussion even begins." I wasn't saying his notions of truth were inherent to his brain; I'm saying that he has accepted them as a priori assumptions for all these arguments. I have no idea where those assumptions of his actually came from; I simply observe that they exist.
---
Every day the rest of your life is changed forever.