Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sounds like more convenience on your part, as being the property of some supereme being seems appealing to you. Appealing in the sense that you don't have to be bothered with the hard work of thinking through complex moral choices, nor do you have to take personal responsibility for those choices. In the end..."don't blame me, thats what god said".
Its cheap, lazy, and lacking strength of character in my view.
And that's worse than you trying to decide selfishly what morality is? Regardless of whether anyone else agrees with it? Look at the world we have today. We got a 65 year old grandpa declaring he's a woman and mutilating his body. We've got a blond-haired, blue-eyed woman pretending to be black, while ironically stating that it's wrong for movies to use white actors portraying black people. We got people telling us it's ok to rip babies from their mothers' wombs while saying it's immoral to give a lethal injection to a criminal who killed 9 people.
If you think it's a cop-out that I look to the creator to define morality...ok. Whatever.
The right to ownership is only one aspect of it. Not because he's mighty...but because he knows all. He has revealed what morality is based on his nature. It's moral because he is good and moral and he has revealed it to be good and moral.
Well now you are just muddling it all up So it isn't because he made us and can do what he wants? Because that was the argument I recall last time... If that is your rationale, then omniscience, goodness, all that, is irrelevant. If that is not your basis, then perhaps you can make clear what exactly you feel makes God qualified to be the arbiter of morality?
You have said it isn't might, and here you argue that property ownership isn't it, that there is some other or additional factor...
Then you argue God is the standard for morality because he is omniscient, but you never go anywhere with that. Even according to the Bible, Adam and Eve knew more after they sinned than before. Clearly knowledge is not the same as good. Maybe you can complete this argument, why is omniscience a sufficient foundation for morality?
Then you toss out the worst argument yet! God is good becasue it is his nature, which we know because he told us so. This is a totally circular argument. God could in fact be evil, and his claim to be good was a lie, which would be consistent with being evil. It is a useless argument, becasue it assumes what is trying to be demonstrated. In addition, it presumes that there is some standard beyond God to determine good and evil, otherwise the claim that God is good is meaningless
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
The fact that human beings think they can define morality and condemn him is laughable. All you've got is your opinion of what good morality is. You have no authority to do so.
But to be honest, that is all you have as well. Your opinion of morality. That is all anyone has. You just claim that your version of morality is really God's version, but of course there is no way to test that claim.
I am curious... In what ways does your deepest most firmly held beliefs about morality conflict with God's? What behavior do you believe, do you feel, to be right and correct that you believe God condemns? What do you, at your core, feel is wrong and evil that God encourages and values? I can think of virtually no moral or legal system I would 100 agree with, I would always have points of contention, even if I chose to submit to them. Which points of God's definitions of right and wrong do not sit well with you and why?
If you think it's a cop-out that I look to the creator to define morality...ok. Whatever.
According to the Bible, your God killed almost the entire human population in a global flood. I'm not so worried about a 65 year old guy who wants to be be a woman that I would invoke your God as some kind of unquestionable source of morality.
Don't encourage him, mordant . . . you will just get more of his absurd standard . . . morality is WHATEVER God says is moral . . . even if it contradicts other things God has said or taught us. A less absolute standard cannot be conceived. Under Vizio's standard . . . morality is entirely at the caprice of his God . . . which makes it as useless as no morality at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TroutDude
Viz has proven in a multitude of posts he hasn't a clue about what constitutes morality.
Talk about the blind leading the blind....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
Why? Because I don't agree with you? I will give you the same challenge. Please tell me WHY that is the case...not just your opinion of it. Are you able to coherently define morality without making an assumption?
NO! Nobody is . . . including YOU, Vizio! Your deliberate obtuseness about this and your tenacious pretense to knowing God's version of morality is a laughingstock. The idea that YOUR God has an absolute standard of morality is patently absurd on its face . . . since it is self-contradictory in too many instances. It takes a truly twisted rationale to excuse and explain away the evil that supposedly is good because God is somehow involved.
If the Biblical deity exists, and its deeds are as portrayed in the Bible, humanity should be inventing ways of exterminating it as it is more evil than any human, ever, including Hitler!
I'm sure that if it were possible for humanity to exterminate God, that would have happened by now. Which kind of goes to show who's God and who's not.
And that's worse than you trying to decide selfishly what morality is?
It is not selfish to make moral judgments, it's responsible. It only becomes self serving if I promulgate a moral principle that harms others in order to benefit myself ... which would, of course, be immoral.
I would say that you are abrogating your social responsibility by refusing to participate in the moral discourse that refines societal morality, but it's actually worse than that. YOU are actually the one "selfishly deciding what morality is" by making stuff up and claiming it's decreed by your god. Because it is YOU deciding what holy writ means, how it is applied, or even that it is good morally. You can't evade that responsibility by claiming you have no choice, it is commanded you. That's just your unsubstantiated assertion.
I'm sure that if it were possible for humanity to exterminate God, that would have happened by now. Which kind of goes to show who's God and who's not.
I might contend the weapon of choice for the extermination of god is science.
And while it is an ongoing & laborious process of debunking each and every unsubstantiated proclamation, it is a necessary and worthwhile one.
And that's worse than you trying to decide selfishly what morality is? Regardless of whether anyone else agrees with it? Look at the world we have today. We got a 65 year old grandpa declaring he's a woman and mutilating his body. We've got a blond-haired, blue-eyed woman pretending to be black, while ironically stating that it's wrong for movies to use white actors portraying black people. We got people telling us it's ok to rip babies from their mothers' wombs while saying it's immoral to give a lethal injection to a criminal who killed 9 people.
If you think it's a cop-out that I look to the creator to define morality...ok. Whatever.
What you choose to focus on in your edict of morality failures is nothing short of revealing to who you are as a person...they are petty things you find distasteful (at least the first 2, I'm not sure what to make of your 3rd assertion other than its hyperbolic ranting not based in reality).
They reveal your personal bias of morality. You don't care about people who you don't personally know. You only care about what is personally confusing to you, and wish to destroy it (or make it go away).
I don't believe there is a god...but if there is...it assuredly would not give 2 sh!ts what a person might choose to do when it harms nobody else. And even if that god did care...it certainly wouldn't care that you care about that more than you care about teenage girls being sold to slavery, innocent black kids being shot by cops, or letting kids starve because we like to reward hard work.
I don't know what Dawkins view is, or his reasons for it, but I would agree that evil is not a meaningful, quantifiable concept. It has no meaning apart from an objective moral code. It is tempting even for me to describe particularly distasteful or heinous harms as "evil", particularly when they are engaged in by people who appear to be devoid of any sort of empathy or compassion, and when the harms are severe and irreversible. But "evil" is a loaded word that goes beyond describing a level of revulsion for a particular action, and freights it with implication and meaning that aren't warranted.
Generally, it seems to me that when the term 'evil' is used in common parlance people are usually referring to "evil" actions or intent on the part of a specific individual or group of individuals.
I typically do not view suffering as "evil."
Out of curiosity, would you be willing to provide an example of an unwarranted meaning or implication?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant
That is why, for instance, I don't like "the Problem of Evil" or POE for the name of the philosophical statement of the theodicy problem. I think "Problem of Suffering" or POS is a far better label. Suffering is far more quantifiable, and most people agree at least on what they recognize as suffering when they see it. Suffering, "the state of undergoing pain, distress or hardship" also is located in the sufferer, not the observer. Suffering only has meaning for sufferers. Evil, meantime, has meaning only for pedantic defenders of allegedly objective moral codes. If we want to know if someone is suffering, we ask THEM. If we want to know if something is evil, the opinion of the victim of evil is nothing but an opinion; only the moral code under consideration can arbitrate whether a thing is good or evil, since often people enjoy asserted evil (say, indulging an addiction or taking something that's not yours) or don't enjoy good (say, studying their Bible or eating fiber-rich vegetables). Whereas if we ask the victim of a theft of they are suffering, we've identified the ACTUAL harm, not the imaginary evil.
What if we were to equate "evil" with wrong doing? In your view, is anything ever objectively wrong?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant
If our purpose in this conversation is to actually ascertain whether there is an externally given objective morality, we cannot argue for or against objective morality in terms of effects that can only proceed from what is axiomatic about objective morality. That would be begging the question. So appeals to good and evil are meaningless as they assume the very thing under discussion.
Rather we must talk in terms of harms and benefits, and in doing so we quickly realize that an objective moral code is not even necessary to have a functional, usable morality in any given situation or moment. Which rather undermines the cause of the moral absolutist.
Just one quick question here: Who gets to define "harms and benefits?"
As far as the purpose of the conversation, I guess it's supposed to be about why we should "exterminate the Biblical deity."
Generally, it seems to me that when the term 'evil' is used in common parlance people are usually referring to "evil" actions or intent on the part of a specific individual or group of individuals.
I typically do not view suffering as "evil."
Out of curiosity, would you be willing to provide an example of an unwarranted meaning or implication?
What if we were to equate "evil" with wrong doing? In your view, is anything ever objectively wrong?
Just one quick question here: Who gets to define "harms and benefits?"
As far as the purpose of the conversation, I guess it's supposed to be about why we should "exterminate the Biblical deity."
I await mordant's reply.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So it isn't because he made us and can do what he wants? Because that was the argument I recall last time... If that is your rationale, then omniscience, goodness, all that, is irrelevant. If that is not your basis, then perhaps you can make clear what exactly you feel makes God qualified to be the arbiter of morality? 
