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

Let me just throw this question out there. Isn't it true that Satan

#51hunter_gohanPosted 4/16/2013 4:28:20 PM
...the right to free will (to an extent), to do whatever you want that isn't evil; but it also says that humans don't have a right to kill each other, to enslave each other against their will, to steal from each other, and so on.


??? The bible has multiple places where people are ordered to kill each other and has laws regulating slavery while never once speaking out against it.

I would rather argue that God-given rights are the only rights you could objectively say that humans have at all,...


You certainly can not even start to do this if you can't even objectively show he actually exists. Even if you could, you would just be following his subjective morality.

...and that God Himself has the right to do whatever He wants. If God is real, it's certainly not my place to decide what He can and cannot do.


Why? There's only so many ways you can go with this. Might makes right, special pleading, cause he created us which would equally apply to parents.

The difference between your beliefs and mine is that I actually have a basis for my beliefs about human rights, and you're just making yours up as you go along. [Ironically, if your response is to simply say you don't believe in my basis (the Bible), you admittedly have no standard by which to say why your own basis is superior. Of course, it will take some time for you to figure that out.]


Yes I am on a higher stage of moral development than you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg's_stages_of_moral_development

Anyone know what stage this would be? Latching onto a supposed authority and just following their subjective morality seems to be stage 4, but like all Christians I have no doubt he'll excuse his god from breaking his own rules(which he pretty much already stated "...God Himself has the right to do whatever He wants." rules be damned, supposed right to life be damned, supposed right not to be enslaved be damned.) which seems to be a bit of Stage 1.

I try my best to operate at stage 6, but like Kohlberg said it seems to be difficult to consistently do that.

You must have me confused with someone else, because I've never heard anyone make such a ridiculous claim that their standard of morality is valid because it's "valuable to our lives." Did you seriously just say that?


I believe he's talking about stage 5, social contract driven.
---
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.
#52DarkContractorPosted 4/16/2013 7:21:58 PM
From: C_Mat | #046
DarkContractor posted...
Yes, all the destruction in the OT (and Hell) is inhumane. Based on the theology, that is not mutually exclusive with 'good'. About 30,000 people die from starvation every year. He is not altruistic with his gifts and lets humans suffer. If your religion calls that good, good for it. Still not humane. Still not altruistic. Etc.


What do you mean by "inhumane"? If you're an atheist or agnostic, I can't even answer your question until I have an idea of where you get these ideas:

humane/inhumane actions
good
altruistic behavior

And just out of curiosity, as an atheist or whatever you are, what do you use as an objective standard to distinguish good and evil actions? And how do you determine that this standard you've come up with also applies to the Creator of the universe?

Do you consider yourself altruistic? Have you done everything in your power to help the millions of starving people in the world today?

If you haven't already come up with answers to these questions, and if you're not yourself helping impoverished people in every way imaginable, then I can tell from the first sentence of your post alone that you have barely thought through what you're talking about.



You missed the whole point. I'm not worrying about the epistemology of what 'good' is, I'm just pointing out the fact that humanity's suffering and destruction is encouraged by God (See: Old Testament, Hell). I don't care if that's good or bad. If your definition of bad does not include the despicable acts in the Old Testament, that is your prerogative. By definition he is still inhumane though in that his actions are completely destructive to a human's well-being.

I use a 'individuals most possible well-being while not infringing on another's well-being' as my moral guideline. I will not defend the contention of whether or not this is 'good' because in my experience with theists it leads to questions like "Well why is productivity, freedom, a lack of discrimination, etc. etc." good? Instead I defend simply that, my system leads to the most flexibility in its inherent ability of relative morals that still have a consistent goal, defend that it is more productive than the Bible as an objective morality, amongst other things. I will defend that there is certainly a lot more happiness, a lot more freedom, a lot more love, a lot more open-minded, our resources are managed and focused on things that directly, tangibly help humanity in lasting ways, I just won't bother arguing if any of these things are pros or cons.

And yes, I do consider myself altruistic. Not to brag about it but since you asked the question, I sponsor 2 3rd world country kids and have a big advocate of the End It movement (a drive to end slave worldwide), both financially and going around telling people about it. And I'm willing to bet that I have a whole lot less resources than God does. I don't have this pool of infinity to draw from in which can instantly fix ****. But this is a non-sequitur. I could be the stingiest person in the world and God would still not be generous with his wealth either. Then again, I'm not "defined as omnibenevolent"

So by all means, if you would like to call out my morality as not 'proven', by all means. It's not like the Bible is proven either.
---
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. PSN: MrPillow92 Steam: MrPillowtheGreat
#53C_MatPosted 4/21/2013 6:51:36 PM
hunter_gohan posted...
I'm saying that any "rights" he may or may not have along these lines are no different than the "rights" of other tyrannical dictators that are generally only accepted by their followers.


Umm because might doesn't make right. You can certainly use your might to force a situation, but that doesn't mean the situation is right. If YHWH being more powerful than humans justifies his atrocities against us, then Hitler having more power than the Jews justifies his atrocities against them.


This is how all morality and rights came to be. Yours is no more grounded in facts than mine. Mine is consistent though in that I hold various beings to the same standard; whereas, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't be defending human tyrants with these arguments.


You still don't get it. You are not even making an argument. You're just saying, "I don't like might makes right" again and again, and drawing comparisons between the Christian God to a dictator without even actually addressing how the Christian God contrasts any dictator. Furthermore, you've also acknowledged that your "argument" has no factual basis, just your opinion. I see no reason to waste my time waiting for you to come up with something of substance any longer.
---
http://youtu.be/gmnSnNC8UJk
#54C_MatPosted 4/21/2013 7:10:09 PM
DarkContractor posted...
You missed the whole point. I'm not worrying about the epistemology of what 'good' is, I'm just pointing out the fact that humanity's suffering and destruction is encouraged by God (See: Old Testament, Hell). I don't care if that's good or bad. If your definition of bad does not include the despicable acts in the Old Testament, that is your prerogative. By definition he is still inhumane though in that his actions are completely destructive to a human's well-being.

I use a 'individuals most possible well-being while not infringing on another's well-being' as my moral guideline. I will not defend the contention of whether or not this is 'good' because in my experience with theists it leads to questions like "Well why is productivity, freedom, a lack of discrimination, etc. etc." good? Instead I defend simply that, my system leads to the most flexibility in its inherent ability of relative morals that still have a consistent goal, defend that it is more productive than the Bible as an objective morality, amongst other things. I will defend that there is certainly a lot more happiness, a lot more freedom, a lot more love, a lot more open-minded, our resources are managed and focused on things that directly, tangibly help humanity in lasting ways, I just won't bother arguing if any of these things are pros or cons.

And yes, I do consider myself altruistic. Not to brag about it but since you asked the question, I sponsor 2 3rd world country kids................................Then again, I'm not "defined as omnibenevolent"

So by all means, if you would like to call out my morality as not 'proven', by all means. It's not like the Bible is proven either.


For one thing, the only reason you're "not worried" about the epistemology of good/evil is that, without a basis for good and evil, your whole argument is nullified. The only way you can make an argument against God's inhumane actions is by borrowing the Bible's moral code to use against Him. In other words, you have to crawl into God's lap so you can slap His face. While I'm happy to go deeper in this with you, I'm not interested in helping you get by with stealing Christian ethics to use against Christianity. You need to actually have a standard of morality proven superior to the Bible before you can attack it.

Second, I'm not sure what your definition of "inhumane" is, but the one I found said "without compassion for misery or suffering; cruel." Even though God punished people with death in the Old Testament, that doesn't necessarily mean He is inhumane. I would punish someone if they did wrong and I was the judge; I hope that bomber they caught in Boston last week gets the death penalty for what he did. I don't think that makes me inhumane at all. By punishing the bad dude, I'm showing compassion for the victims.

And I wasn't asking about whether you do anything to help starving people to try and make you appear bad at all, it's quite possible you send more money for that than I do. My point in asking was, I think it hurts your argument against God helping starving people if you're not already doing everything in your power to help them already. To make up a lame allegory, it would be like if you and God were trying to jump a big chasm based on how charitable you were to the poor. If you've donated 50% of your extra resources to helping poor people, and God has only given 25% of His extra resources, then you might get halfway across the chasm and God only makes it a fourth of the way. You'd both fall, and neither would really have a good reason to feel superior to the other if neither were 100% committed to that mission. If you don't see my point in this, you can ignore this leg of the convo. I don't want you to think that question about your giving was a personal attack. I just wanted to give another perspective on it.
---
http://youtu.be/gmnSnNC8UJk
#55DarkContractorPosted 4/22/2013 6:16:32 PM
For one thing, the only reason you're "not worried" about the epistemology of good/evil is that, without a basis for good and evil, your whole argument is nullified.


Actually, my basis is the well-being of humanity. I counter with why is God a basis for good and evil? How do I know I can trust him?

The only way you can make an argument against God's inhumane actions is by borrowing the Bible's moral code to use against Him. In other words, you have to crawl into God's lap so you can slap His face. While I'm happy to go deeper in this with you, I'm not interested in helping you get by with stealing Christian ethics to use against Christianity. You need to actually have a standard of morality proven superior to the Bible before you can attack it.


Please, I have zero intentions of using Christian morality. I am not a bigot, afterall. Also, you need to prove the Bible before you treat it as an objective morality. Until then, your morality is just as much of an arbitary bottom up as mine (in fact more so, at the very least mine is better in that it is more productive. Is the betterment of humanity not necessarily good, either? Even if you COULD prove the God of the Bible, all this means is that God said the things he said in the Bible. This does nothing to prove God's morality. He could be a complete monster, heartless and evil and supportive of human suffering (actually, he is supportive of human suffering. Read: Hell). An objective morality can never be achieved, it requires an arbitary bottom up no matter what. Mine is the well being of humanity, yours is an egotistic deity that watches souls perish in Hell, makes people eat fecal matter for repentance (Malachi 3:2, Ezkeil (sp?) 14), forces family to kill each other by the sword (Exodus 32), and then there's just the whole **** that goes on in Judges. He's okay with people dying of starvation, he's okay with some of the ****ed up species you see (such as the frog that has to break its bones in order to move, I really need to find the name of that) Don't think I can describe that on GameFAQs without being modded for offensive content. Since objective morality can never actually be proven, we are forced to this dichtomy. I think I'm fine with not being able to demonstrate an epistemology of which one of these is 'good' that doesn't lend itself to the question "why".

Second, I'm not sure what your definition of "inhumane" is, but the one I found said "without compassion for misery or suffering; cruel." Even though God punished people with death in the Old Testament, that doesn't necessarily mean He is inhumane. I would punish someone if they did wrong and I was the judge; I hope that bomber they caught in Boston last week gets the death penalty for what he did. I don't think that makes me inhumane at all. By punishing the bad dude, I'm showing compassion for the victims.


Yet he had the power to stop the compassion and the misery. In my morality, you can show compassion for everyone. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. Let me tell you about all the compassion I have for God for being victimized to the horrendous crime of not being worshiped.....And I'm done.
---
"If God exists why did I stub my toe this morning?" - Me "Well If God doesnt exist how do we bacon CHECKMATE ATHEISTS" - TheRealJiraiya
#56DarkContractorPosted 4/22/2013 6:30:07 PM(edited)
And I wasn't asking about whether you do anything to help starving people to try and make you appear bad at all, it's quite possible you send more money for that than I do. My point in asking was, I think it hurts your argument against God helping starving people if you're not already doing everything in your power to help them already. To make up a lame allegory, it would be like if you and God were trying to jump a big chasm based on how charitable you were to the poor. If you've donated 50% of your extra resources to helping poor people, and God has only given 25% of His extra resources, then you might get halfway across the chasm and God only makes it a fourth of the way. You'd both fall, and neither would really have a good reason to feel superior to the other if neither were 100% committed to that mission. If you don't see my point in this, you can ignore this leg of the convo. I don't want you to think that question about your giving was a personal attack. I just wanted to give another perspective on it.



God still only gave 25% regardless of how you look at it. That is an objective fact in your allegory. The logical conclusion is that neither of us are not omnibenevolent. I have zero problem with the idea that I am not omnibenevolent. I don't claim to be an objective source of measuring good off of. I included that as a pre-emptive rebuttal in my last post. Why would God's omnibenevolence be verified by means of the lack of verification of mine? Why ought my lack of omnibenevolence cancel out his? In fact, why not reverse? How come God's lack of omnibenevolence in your allegory doesn't cancel out mine? The conclusion of it is again that neither of us are omnibenevolent the moment we decide to weigh altruism in terms of a moral component.
---
"If God exists why did I stub my toe this morning?" - Me "Well If God doesnt exist how do we bacon CHECKMATE ATHEISTS" - TheRealJiraiya
#57DarkContractorPosted 4/22/2013 6:31:37 PM(edited)
n fact, even if we could trust God, how does God discern morality? Even if he was omniscient (which he's not, it's a logical impossibility. You can never arrive to the conclusion of omniscience without using your omniscience, which is circular logic, and you can never disprove that there's something you don't know and that you don't know that you don't know it, but that's another topic), then what does God do from there? What conclusion can God make from the facts, even if he has all of them, can I not say 'why is that good and moral though?" That's leaping past the hurdles of "Is God trustworthy?" and "Is God omniscient" anyways, just to see what happens next in the logic.

Also, in the discourse based on the axiom that God is an objective morality, I have zero problem considering myself evil. My goal is not 'good' but to have the best intentions for humanity.
---
"If God exists why did I stub my toe this morning?" - Me "Well If God doesnt exist how do we bacon CHECKMATE ATHEISTS" - TheRealJiraiya
#58XoarWins(Topic Creator)Posted 4/23/2013 8:20:38 AM
Resident Weevil posted...
Biblical scripture in support:
http://bible.cc/1_peter/5-8.htm
http://bible.cc/proverbs/20-2.htm
http://bible.cc/james/1-13.htm
http://bible.cc/psalms/9-20.htm


What's interesting is that, if you replace 'Satan' with 'God', it would still apply.

God does not terrorize me.


De Evolution posted...
Came in here to post this. I think TC did this on purpose so he could come in and say GOTCHA!

NOPE.
God makes a clear set of rules to follow, such as
"Thou shall not kill"
that does not mean "if you're confronted by an intruder in your home and you have a large butcher knife in your hands from cutting up fish, though shall kill in self defense.
HE is pretty damn clear. Thou. Shall. Not. Kill.
---
If your Mom stopped coming by my house and actually WORKED, you might have something. Boy.
#59kts123Posted 4/23/2013 8:59:10 AM
[This message was deleted at the request of the original poster]
#60ThuggernautzPosted 4/23/2013 9:35:16 AM
XoarWins posted...

NOPE.
God makes a clear set of rules to follow, such as
"Thou shall not kill"
that does not mean "if you're confronted by an intruder in your home and you have a large butcher knife in your hands from cutting up fish, though shall kill in self defense.
HE is pretty damn clear. Thou. Shall. Not. Kill.


You mean murder. God kills and commands killings on many occasions. Hell, he had himself killed as the ultimate sacrifice, remember?