Total posts: 7,093
-->
@SirAnonymous
And you do believe that it is morally correct for them to be sent to hell?
Created:
-->
@SirAnonymous
Do you believe that moral (by the metric you are employing) atheists go to hell?
Created:
-->
@SirAnonymous
As a Christian who knows a lot of other Christians, I cannot think of even a single one who believes that non-Christians are incapable of having morals or living a moral life.
I can appreciate that some or even many theists are not if this opinion but I have encountered many times on this very server the argument that morality must necessarily come from some god(s) and that simply failing to believe in god(s) is itself immoral.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I'm not sure the statistics back up that hypothesis. In fact in nearly every metric we consider an indicator of success and happiness there would seem to be an inverse correlation between quality of life and religiosity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Then I can consider it hypothetically. I'm afraid I can't consider it as an actual. Not without some demonstration that it is more.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Did you wish to continue our conversation or were you done?
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
For what exactly? When explaining please don't just assume your conclusion demonstrate it.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Simply through being human. Religion is not necessary because humans are social animals who look for meaning in the universe.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I'm not sure it does as far as it goes so long as you understand the difference between actual and hypothetical.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
So I'm not sure what your point is.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Humans are social creatures whose brains are wired to detect patterns and meanings even when none exist. Far from needing help it is almost impossible to keep us from feeling a sense of community and purpose.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I would say that it is very probable that all discussion of the supernatural claims of religion and spirituality are by necessity hypothetical.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
You don't actually need religion for that.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
I don't see why Pascal's wager would have to 'only refer to the Christian religion.
That is actually one of its flaws not one of its strengths. No matter what religion presents the argument also presents a false dichotomy. Believing isn't enough if it is your argument that one must believe in the "correct" god(s) in order to receive the reward proposed.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
I am not offering any strawman. I am only addressing Pascal's Wager and the flaws in the argument. (IF) the criteria for entry into some afterlife cannot be determined (THEN) any argument concerning entry into said afterlife becomes by necessity an argument from ignorance.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
If faith in the existence of some god(s) is not necessarily a requirement for entry into heaven what are the actual criteria and how have you determined them?
Created:
-->
@Lemming
Not all religious people believe that you have to believe in their faith to go to heaven.
What then is the criteria for entry into heaven and what reason in that case would one have to subscribe to Pascal's wager? If the cost versus benefit of belief is not eternal torment versus bliss what exactly is being wagered?
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
not neccessarily true,you would have more benefits believing in God
Really? What benefits are there for such beliefs other than some (hypothetical/undemonstrable) reward in the (hypothetical/undemonstrable) afterlife? How does Pascal's wager point to any other benefit? It is my understanding that Pascal presented his argument solely based on the strength of infinite (hypothetical/undemonstrable) reward versus infinite (hypothetical/undemonstrable) punishment.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
That is called a hypothetical situation. It is what we have been discussing the whole time. If hypothetically the Yahweh did exist then I would judge the Yahweh's moral character by the Yahweh's actions and moral pronouncements to us. Since the Yahweh's condones commands and commits what would be called atrocities if humans were to do the same I have no choice but to consider the Yahweh's moral character to be atrocious.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I'm not proposing any god(s) good or evil (and again I really prefer moral or immoral but you insist on using the word evil) actually exists I am only assessing the character of the likely fictional character Yahweh as described in the old testament.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Good and bad are subjective terms. They are merely opinions and besides that can only be used in context to a particular standard. Saying that something is logically speaking good or bad is most generally nonsense. At the very least you would have to have well defined axioms.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
Hypothetically, let us go with what the original sources says - God is good. God created everything. Including humanity. What is the flaw?
The flaw in your argument at least is in simply declaring things good without a specifically defined axioms of what makes a thing "good".
We may simply be in fundamental disagreement about what that word means in this context. The Yahweh does not fit in with my opinion of what is good based on the information presented because he is responsible for a large degree of human suffering and death. I understand that you would like to focus on a single idea but the truth is I'm not sure what part of Adam and Eve or their character the Yahweh found specifically unworthy but clearly this was the case and he really has no one to blame but himself. In fact if he was going to get rid of all the wicked people and start over this would have been the opportune moment, not the flood. What not just erase Adam and Eve from existence and make better (or at least different) people if there was a particular standard that they did not live up to and killing humans for being "wicked" is morally permissible? (That it is morally permissible is another thing we disagree on by the way)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
I suppose the fact that God does not prevent any injustice calls into question his character as well.
Only if he is capable of doing something and knows said injustices exist.
Is that really what you are going to sit with?
I am not proposing any particular scenario I'm just not convinced that you are correct can you demonstrate that the Yahweh was concerned for Job by any sensible definition? Because Yahwehs actions don't seem to bear this hypothesis out.
There is nothing in this story which makes God culpable. True - he might have told Satan to F off. Yet that would not vindicate Job in the eyes of Satan
Why is that an issue? Is the Yahweh not omniscient? Did he need some test to determine Job's motivation? Why is Satan's opinion in this matter important in the least? Is god not the all powerful all knowing final arbiter of Job's destiny? It seems almost like the actions of a being who does not know everything. Perhaps the god described in the bible just isn't as powerful as I have been led to believe by Christians.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
God had no intention of harming Job.
Only his children? But seriously boils and abject poverty are both harmful so the Yahweh's intentions aside harm was done.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
I indicated that God permitted the torment -
That is enough to call his moral character into question in my opinion.
Why limit it at all if there was no concern for Job?
Because he wanted to win the bet. Arbitrarily for no real reason. Budget cuts and cost overruns. His concern for Job is far from the only possible cause and also I would posit that anyone who really cared about Job would not allow him to be tormented in the first place so there is that.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
Either we can use logic and reason to understand the Yahweh and his characteristics or we cannot understand the Yahweh and his characteristics. I have no desire to debate an unknowable. I don't have any real desire to hear your arguments either if they depart from logic and reason. If it is the case that pur logic is useless in deciphering the character in the reference we have agreed upon then discussion of the character in regards to the subject material is not going to bear fruit.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
From what I understand the Yahweh allowed/commanded the torment so unless the Yahweh was somehow duped by the figure the bible refers to (not necessarily the Christian notion of satan by the way) then I remain unconvinced by the argument that he bears no culpability.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
It might not be for you. Maybe I'm missing part of your conversion that makes indentured servitude an exception, but in general, the accusation of slavery in the Bible embraces it all. There's still an element of ownership even if voluntary.What is it that you're unconvinced of? That indentured servitude existed?
Yes indentured servitude existed in Hebrew society for other hebrews but non hebrews could be bought, sold, owned and passed down as inheritance. Two different standards existed. One for hebrews and one for everyone else. The morality of keeping indentured hebrew servants, of which I am not necessarily convinced of, aside the ownership of non hebrews is what I'm actually referring to.
It's interesting that you know you would be upset, but are assuming you'd be wrong for doing so.
I do not actually know that. Maybe I'd kiss him. I said it would depend on the context of the situation.
This is one of the unusual things about life.How often have we seen people say God is (or would be if existed) evil because innocent people including children get Cancer?Yet, we also see many cases of people claiming their Cancer (or another illness, bad circumstances)gave them strength they never had, an appreciation for things they took for granted, etc. Too often we look at someone in a bad situation, and use them as an excuse as being a victim of something we look down on (like for some people God), rather than letting the alleged victim tell us how things really are.The question is how did Job view the incident? If Job was truly blessed, we wouldn't have much ground for argument.
That we can take strength in adversity does not make cancer desirable and would not make giving someone cancer moral. After all you wouldn't want me to give you cancer. Also adversity doesn't always result in strength of character. Often it only results in death.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Well, actually it does not matter whether you think it is better or not
Then why ask my opinion?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
by nature, he has to be moral
And yet his actions appear to be immoral to me. I judge a person (or god) by their actions I don't judge the actions by the person (or god). If they do not behave in a way that is in accordance with my understanding of moral then I judge them immoral.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
If the bombing of Hiroshima may have spared us from more attacks like Pearl Harbor (which was the intention), how can you call it immoral?
Because I'm not of the opinion that two wrongs make a right or that the ends necessarily justify the means and also because melting the faces of civilians with nuclear fire and radiation just doesn't sit right with me.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
you can not only make an ALWAYS assertion
It is not an assertion it is an opinion.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
He intentionally does not limit himself to our ways of logic
Then any statements made about the Yahweh will by necessity be arguments from ignorance and there is no reason to continue this discussion. Anything that does not follow the law of logical necessity is by definition beyond pur epistemology.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Job's children died. Everyone dies. Did they go immediately into the presence of God, which is far better?
I think in will just address this for now. No it is not better so far as I can tell.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
It does seem to say more about the author than the Yahweh. I agree absolutely about the ending however. It is unsatisfactory that the answer is "don't question me when I torment you!"
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
that he eternally is.
An eternal beings actions would be either caused (determinism) or uncaused (indistinguishable from random) or some mix of the two. If you can think of an alternative please present it.
you used the words intractable which I submit implies unable to reverse -which sounds pretty solid and is tantamount to ALWAYS.
Yes my opinion about genocide is always that they are wrong. This is not however a natural law unless my opinion = natural law. Also the UN stance on genocide is completely incidental to my own. They could agree or disagree and my stance would remain unchanged.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Well good luck with your zealotry then. Feel free not to respond to my posts in the future.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Oh hello possibly (hopefully) insincere exception to the rule. I must admit I did forget about you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
I really doubt anyone has actually tried to argue that god is evil.It is possible that people have said "I don't think any gods exist but if this one did I would think it is evil" but I really reeeeeally doubt anyone has ever said god is evil except as a shorthand for that idea.
Good point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
Not really a fan of the book of Job. Not only does the Yahweh kill Job's children just to test Job he also completely misses the point of why that is an unacceptable thing to do as e evidenced by the fact that he considered replacement children to be a suitable way to make up for killing the first ones. I understand it was an answer (one of many presented in the old testament) to the problem of suffering even arguably the best one since at least it isn't engaging in outright victim blaming but it isn't really a satisfying answer and it does basically excuse Job's abuser instead denying his right to even question his abuser.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Well. Humans are neither 100% fallible or infallible....But what's this got to do with theistic literature per se....The question is fact or fiction, not the failings and/or abilities of it's authors.And laying huge stones upon each other to build a structure is an achievable reality....Back breaking work for some poor bastards and the whims of self importance for others...Same as it ever was and as it still is.Fact or fiction?....Same as it ever was and same as it still is.
Well stated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Could fallible humans successfully produce the message God intended for man in the form of literatute?
Provided there some god(s) exist humans could write anything it was possible to communicate to humans. The trouble then becomes discerning any given work of fiction or mythology from a genuine message from some god(s).
Fallible humans built the great pyramid, from the bond servant who placed the last brick in the wall, to the authority figure who commanded it's construction. Does anyone have any complaints about the great pyramid? Is there any imperfections that cause you to do a face palm when thinking on that 7th wonder of the world?
Are you suggesting that some god(s) were involved? If not than I'm not sure what pur ability to manipulate physically objects and perform mathematics and feats of engineering has to do with any supernatural thing or even how that could be seen as a demonstration that any supernatural thing can or could exist.
Created:
Posted in:
I have no difficulty believing that there was an itinerant rabbi who headed up an end of times cult that performed a ceremony involving water. That isn't really an extraordinary claim in and of itself. As a matter of fact if you leave out all the magic stuff the story of Jesus is fairly plausible. In fact if there was no historical figure why would the authors of the new testament go to such great lengths to invent ways for him to fulfill various prophecies that required say for example Mary and Joseph to travel to Jerusalem when there is no evidence that it was a common practice at the time to go anywhere for census or taxation purposes. The Roman's were by all accounts perfectly happy to count and tax you wherever you happened to be at the time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
Jesus Christ Superstar is my favorite musical. Something you didn't know, BAM.
That is a pretty good one but not my favorite. For me it is probably a tie between Popey staring Robin Williams in the titular role and Tenacious D and the Pick of Destiny.
The story of Job is my favorite in the OT. Something else you didn't know, BAM. I have you reeling now, oh ho ho.
For me it is probably Elisha and the two bears. I laugh every time they call him baldy and his reaction is so deliciously over the top that it is nearly farcical.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
I don't concede it in relation to God.
Then please suggest an alternative to caused uncaused or a mix of caused and uncaused. We will proceed from there.
Take for instance your moral position that genocide is ALWAYS immoral.
You are overstating my position. I said that I am of the intractable opinion that it is always wrong. I cannot imagine what would change my mind but it is my mind under discussion not the mind of the members of the United Nations.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
The reason I brought up the 7 year Israelite voluntary servitude is because it never gets addressed until it's mentioned as a retort. I have yet to hear someone say "The bible condones the owning of a human being........except in the case of Israelite voluntary servitude."
The morality of indentured servitude, which I remain unconvinced of, is not the issue when we discuss owning people as property buying and selling them as property and passing them down to your children as property. We can discuss indentured servitude next if you like but it is a separate issue. It is though on a side note immoral to have separate standards for different groups of people as this has a tendency to create second class citizens.
Are you saying that you might unjustly lash out at them?
I might and that would be wrong of me. After all you have specifically said he did not act on these fantasies.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Can you say for certain that if the U.S. had not bombed Hiroshima that Japan would not have attacked us again?
Nope.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Do you think that the 7 year voluntary servitude was immoral?
The question of the separate rules for hebrews versus non hebrews in this regard is immaterial. Non hebrews were held to a different standard. That is the standard under discussion.
If your best friend told you they were unashamedly fantasizing over your spouse, what would your response be to that individual?
Probably not a rational one and probably dictated by the specifics of the situation.
Created: