Athias

personally speaking, someone (a being) who commits an equal number of, and equal measure of "moral" and "immoral" acts could still be considered "amoral"

Because the level of “sufficient information” you need to proceed means you are either need help or are not trying to have a good faith productive conversation.

The point I was making was about the logical impossibility of God having the qualities often prescribed to him and still being anything other than amoral given the reality we can clearly observe.

There are serious ways to deal with that if you disagree; you can for example claim that God does not have all of those qualities, or you can show how those qualities logically square to the world we observe. You responded by asking me to explain what “bad” is and why I would apply that to my example of child sex trafficking rings.

What morality is and how we apply it is certainly a philosophical conversation worth having and one where there is much disagreement. But to go down that path in this conversation along with the litany of other things you asked for shows that you aren’t serious,

this is more like an attempt to just wear me down by making me explain every simple concept to you while you pretend not to understand.

Not worth my time.

it would only be "inconsistent" iff one tried to simultaneously maintain that only humans can be "morally culpable"

all non-human actors are technically "amoral", regardless of their activity and (apparent) motive

Individuals age at such differing rates that some grow older three times faster than other people of the same age, a new study has found. US scientists who conducted the study on a group of 38-year-olds found that their biological ages ranged from 28 to 61. Don't you think that this is poor quality control?

(IFF) one were to imagine that their concept of morality applied to a godlike ALMOST OOC (THEN) one would have to imagine how they would judge a being that has explicitly CAUSED all things

if a woman "created" two new humans, and raised them to be phenomenal individuals (by widely accepted modern standards), would that give the woman in question LICENSE to murder two people ?

Do you cap and trade your good and bad deeds?

A friend of mine shared this story with me about a study that showed environmentalists were more likely to steal, cheat and lie, and it really fascinated me. It highlighted the idea of “compensatory ethics,” the idea that people act as if they have to (or can) balance the good and bad they do — if they do something good, they need (or can) to do something bad to compensate.

After reading the article, I read this opinion piece about not only why environmentalists might be inclined to do bad, but why anyone who does good deeds is more apt to also do bad deeds:

"redemption" is a common theme in the stories we tell, but apparently the idea can be a double-edged-sword

This is all due to God's lack of knowledge of Quality Control. This is why God got voted off of MasterGod.

perfecto

there is a very natural inclination for humans to project human motives and human emotions onto an imagined god

we spend our formative years knowing very little about the world and our parents and or guardians are virtual gods to us

some people never quite grow out of this mindset

the logical problem arises when anyone claims their preferred god is the OOC

with an OOC, all "humanity" instantly goes out the window

"the watchmen" illustrates this surprisingly well

in the television version, humans live in a world with something undeniably ALMOST OOC

and two different characters develop the capability to turn themselves into ALMOST OOC

and when the existing ALMOST OOC is asked, "why don't you try and stop them?"

they respond with something like, "if they achieve their aim of becoming like me, they will only want what i want, they will want like i want, they will not want what they wanted when they were mere humans"

"moral" and "immoral" are only coherent concepts from the perspective of an individual

however, regardless of which individual you might decide to ask, OOC is clearly "morally culpable" in all conceivable cases

an OOC is beyond human "moral judgement" and therefore best described as "amoral"

human "moral judgement" is based on human experience and human regret and human goals

an OOC has no human experience and is incapable of human regret and human goals

an OOC does not "learn from their mistakes" because they are incapable of learning because they already know everything

an OOC is not subject to the judgement of their social peers because an OOC is peerless (by definition)

only humans can be properly "moral" or "immoral"

a dog may commit atrocities, a spider and a shark may act with brutal efficiency, but they cannot be "immoral"

no matter how shrewd, animals and forces of nature are "amoral"

strangely, human "morality" seems closely tangled with the magical concept of "free-will"

and it bears mentioning that an OOC cannot have "free-will"

i generally agree

the "trolley problem" is easily "solved" when you understand that the person in question did not CAUSE the situation itself and therefore cannot be "morally culpable"

substituting an omnipotent omniscient creator "god" in any hypothetical "trolley problem" changes the math

an OOC "god" cannot claim ignorance and cannot sidestep their part in creating the situation

OOC = full moral culpability for all events and outcomes

God knowingly made the brains, bodies and life events of each individual that commits the crimes against humanity that Double_R describes.

By that very same metric, God has also made the brains, bodies, and life events of each individual who have never committed a crime, who contribute large amounts of time and labor to their communities, and live content lives. Again, you would have to establish how inaction or non-interference establishes amorality.

I understand; that is, however, not the basis of my objection. As pointed out to RationalMadman: if God is responsible for all the bad outcomes, by that very same measure, God is also responsible for all the good outcomes. How is that indicative of an "amoral God"?

(IFF) you are fully aware of an atrocity (even many years and or eons BEFORE it happens) (AND) you are fully capable of ending that atrocity (with no danger to yourself and with little to no effort) (AND) you decide to do "nothing" (THEN) you are morally culpable for that atrocity

If you need it explained to you why the allowance of a child sex trafficking rings is amoral please seek help. Immediately. DART is not where you need to be.

Are you talking about white chocolate? Cause then it's ok of course.

If your personal stance is you object to Russia invading Ukraine and that every Russian is therefore responsible for it then you can leave the site.

Do we need a site stance on this?

We are all individual users.

My stance is that what Putin is doing is obviously wrong, but why do we need the whole site to unite on this?

We can try to get as many people to our side as possible, but everyone is entitled to their own opinion on a debate website. 

To bring up Mike’s nationality is irrelevant

What is the best thing in the world?

My mom says it is, but she's kinda woke, so I don't trust her judgement.  But family guy was able to say it and nobody cared

My description of God, which you stated was not your objection, is that it is logically impossible for anything bad to happen that is not in accordance with God’s will.

Therefore, the existence of all bad things, say child sex trafficking rings for example, is in accordance with God’s will.

Do I really need to demonstrate for you how this constitutes amorality?

For sure...But depends upon how far one chooses to take reduction.

Same with all discussions.....One picks a spot, stands on ones soap box and proclaims the  data that they have taken on board.

Data usually grounded in some measure of formative conditioning (childhood brainwashing)....And then perhaps latterly contrived and modified.

Bias towards particular measures, as it were.

LMAO!

Being responsible for the evil people being evil and good people being good while wilfully not intervening after making them knowingly, is amorality.

I am just not sure how the fuck else to tell it to you but sure, you're in the right.

Where the problem lies is for some reason atheists think that religion should be debated via science even though religion has nothing to do with science.

If you say you love your wife nobody's going to tell you to produce scientific evidence that you love your wife. If you say you believe in gods no one's going to present scientific evidence that you believe in gods because it's a relationship with a being whether somebody thinks that being exists or not.

I'm not sure why one is acceptable and one isn't other than atheist simply don't believe that there is somebody else on the other end of that relationship. But for the believer or the practitioner they have full faith in that other being.

Is it your position that a god could be both moral and amoral at the same time in the same sense?

That is amorality...

If he's the all knowing, all powerful creator of everything then it is logically impossible for him to have created anything without knowing what the outcome would have been and deciding to create it that way anyway.

Pro: Why should I be forced to pay for somebody else's kids?

Con: It is needed to prevent kids from ending up on welfare.

God knowingly made the brains, bodies and life events of each individual that commits the crimes against humanity that Double_R describes.

That's like asking how the definition of an adjective constitutes possessing the adjective if one repeatedly behaves in the way of the definition.

If God is the all knowing all powerful creator of everything then everything that happens is in accordance with his will. This means every child rape, every malicious murder, everything, is in accordance with his will. That makes him amoral by any reasonable standard.

I mean, I would say it is a non-sequitur, and the fact that you didn't specify a theistic god rather than a deistic one (or really any specification that would help), I think that it is only logical to conclude that there is no rational justification to accept the conclusion.

Does anybody disagree?

"Testing" if you like.

And Qualia and ritual speak are derived  from internal data management.....And internal data management is a seemingly remarkable, electrochemical process.

Evolved from what?

The same as everything else.......You might feel the need to include a GOD in this process.....And I just see the need for a GOD, as being an inevitable part of this process.

So we acquire, create and transfer data relative to experience.....A. Creates an internal need for a GOD, and also creates an associated database......Z.  Doesn't create an internal need for a GOD, and creates an associated database.....Same electrochemical processing, slightly different conclusions reached. Output will obviously contrast, though neither is irrational in terms of process.....Both are Qualia.

Though neither proves or disproves the existence of an actual GOD.

And spirituality cannot be demonstrated to be more than an internal electro-chemical response to an external stimulus.

“Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality. When we recognize our place in an immensity of light years and in the passage of ages, when we grasp the intricacy, beauty and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling, that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual.”

Qualia was your choice of word.....

A bit of data output derived of human processes and function.......In the same way that  meaning and spiritual are derived.

Qualia has a very simple definition which aptly exemplifies the process of data acquisition and management.

And for sure, quite an amazing process, but that's just the way things have evolved.

In my opinion.

You will have your opinion.....Which in my opinion is also no more  than the same process.

Internal processes are meaning, but if you seek some secondary meaning, then internal processes can provide meaning....So refer to it as spiritual.

Internal processes are qualia, or provide qualia..

For clarity, here is the question from post 453 : “How does what you said about disbelief and one's private gnosis apply ?”

For clarity, here is what the question is about ('what you said'), from post 440 : “I create distinctions between "believe in" and "argue for." That is, the disbelief in God or gods as an expression of value needs not be "rationally defensible" because it's a declaration of one's private gnosis.”

First, you are missing the point, for the issue is not whether you addressed the question, but whether you answered it. You haven't.

Second, I cannot find where in post 440 you addressed the question. Please show where you have done so.

You say that with that disagreement you merely shared your internal gnosis

1. No, I didn't.

How does what you said about disbelief and one's private gnosis apply ?

I never stated that my disagreement with your claim was an expression of private gnosis. I stated that private gnosis on its own needs not be rationally defensible.

I create distinctions between "believe in" and "argue for." That is, the disbelief in God or gods as an expression of value needs not be "rationally defensible" because it's a declaration of one's private gnosis. As an argument, however, the proposition of a claim needs to be rationally defensible because argumentation is intended to resolve disputes between conflicting private gnoses using a consistent (not objective) standard as its measure. So, "I don't believe in God" needs not be rationally defensible; however, "God does not exist"--an argument--needs to be.

[2.] Please demonstrate that your disagreement with the claim “In the mean time everyone agrees, either tacitly or explicitely, that the position that atheism is irrational is not a rationally defensible one.” is rationally defensible.

[3.] You are being evasive. How does the meaning of value explain why stating that a belief is based on value is redundant.

Definitions weren't discussed in this subdiscussion.

That did not stop you from using the former as an excuse to abstain from doing that latter.

I did so on your request.

[100] If I have inappropriately failed to provide substantion to my questions about your definitions, please point out the pertinent cases.

101] Typically confusing or deceptive definitions. For example, calling your dog God and then claiming that God exists.

[4.''] You forgot the magic word.

[78] Right. Let's jump passed the confusion you mangaged to sow.

Apparently I read you wrong. You again successfully confused me.

In post 445 you said : “In order to aquire and maintain knowledge, one needs information. One can either conceive information or receive information, which ultimately is still conceived (i.e. information sustained by one's mind is irrevocably subjected to the bias of one's mind and subsequent conceptual attachments.) Your defining Spino--conceiving or "receiving" information notwithstanding--informs its existence.”

Please demonstrate the last claim.

[a] So, defining Spino implies conceiving Spino and conceiving Spino provides information about Spino. Yet you claimed that the nonexistent provides no information. Please demonstrate that.

[b] It would seem then that I can make you commit a red herring fallacy on demand.

[*] Is that a fact or just your personal opinion ?

[**] Providing information to this argument ≠ honouring your burden of proof.

Most people are lazy. Few people are honest enough to admit it.

[a] You missed the point. Adress a question ≠ answer a question

[b] The claim I have asked you to prove is that everything that is perceptible exists. (I am assuming that Everything = everything.) Since then we have a definition for everything, namely all things that exist. That makes the claim elementary. However, you also claimed that God is perceptible and that the nonexistent cannot be perceived. Please demonstrate those claims.

[c] Your impoliteness is not contested.

[f] I thought you had not answered the question and strictly speaking, I was correct. Then, in post 465, I noticed that an answer could be derived fom it, which I provided in post 465. Now you refuse to acknowledge that that candidate answer is indeed according to you the answer to my question. You refuse to provide clarity.

[g] I don't state I measure “impossibility” and I don't know what applying abstracts means.

As this is not going anywhere, I would assume the answer is 'no' for logical impossibility and 'it depends' for physical impossibility. However, since making assumptions about what you believe or stand by tends to be counteproductive, I won't.

[81] You claim that it is false that it is impossible to imagine something that does not exist prior. Therefore it is possible to imagine something that does not exist prior or it is neither possible nor impossible to imagine something that does not exist prior.

Thus we have :

P1. It is impossible to imagine something that does not exist. (from post 454)

P2. Imagining something that does not yet exist does not always cause it to exist.

P3. It is possible or (not possible and not impossible) to imagine something that does not exist prior.

P3 implies (using P2) that it is possible  or  (possible nor impossible) to imagine something that does not exist.

That appears to contradict P1. How do you reconcile these premises ?

would you consider "spiritual" = "brain-states"

or do you quantify "spiritual" by some other metric ?

An internal electrochemical response to an external stimulus.

Often incorrectly defined with ritual-speak.

Arguably the best pudding in the World.

Or arguably not.

Depending upon one's internal electrochemical response to the pudding.

In my opinion, some puddings are spiritual and some are just nice.

Marx was a bourgeois hypocrite.

what is your preferred definition of "spiritual" and what is your preferred definition of "supreme" ?

spiritual: relating to or affecting the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things.

highest in rank or authority; paramount; sovereign; chief

of the highest quality, degree, character, importance, etc

Par for the course. At least he removed the dumbass virtue-flag from his profile.

Rock is set to perform standup at Boston's Wilbur Theater on Wednesday. On March 18, the cheapest tickets were sold for $46, but had increased to $411 by Monday, according to TickPick's public relations representative Kyle Zorn.

The site reports that 51% of its sales for Chris Rock's tour, which went on sale on February 24, have come since the Oscars, a representative for TickPick told CBS News via email. In the last week, 88% of Rock's ticket sales on the site came through after the Oscars.

And tickets for his Friday show at the same theater now start at $503. That show is sold out on TicketMaster. 

It's often the case with these political quizzes that they assume the dichotomies manufactured by the maker instead of the dichotomies implied by logic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toGMjVVhkiM

The CURRENT thing.