Total posts: 7,093
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
What do you think the bombing of Hiroshima was?
Immoral.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
Are we talking about a being in a linear timeframe or an eternal system?
Regardless of the system under discussion actions are either caused (determinism) or uncaused (indistinguishable from random) or some mix of the two. I don't see any other options. Can you suggest another option?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I understand that you are trying to get me to accept the "goodness" of a being who condones, commands and commits genocide axiomatically. I also understand that I am unable to do so since I am of the intractable belief that genocide is immoral.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
If your argument is that "god moves in mysterious ways" the best you can actually claim is that we are unable to assess the morality of the Yahweh then any argument on your part about the morality of said actions becomes necessarily an argument from ignorance.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I do not accept any being that condones, commands or commits genocide as a good moral standard. Especially not if your best argument is "but he's good though".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
well its good no matter what
Genocide is good no matter what?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I don't care what his reasons for condoning, commanding and committing genocide. I do not believe that can be justified. Especially not by claiming that the people who were killed were "bad" or "wicked" or "evil".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Well i don't like the term evil but in my opinion he is certainly immoral.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
Now for the record I don't know whether my lecturer was right or wrong in his reasoning. Yet I live in a economic system which is a mixed economy for want of a better term.
No clever mix of caused and uncaused leads us to free will.
Allow me to restate my argument in its entirety.
Either our actions are caused (determinism) or they are uncaused (indistinguishable from random) neither is compatible with free will and no clever mix of the two magically generates free will.
In relation to your argument above - you may be right in relation to humans or indeed any part of the creation. Yet I fail to see how it applies to God in the same manner. At least not the God I see in the Bible.
Either the Yahweh's actions are caused (determinism) or they are uncaused (indistinguishable from random) and omniscience =/= freewill. An omniscient being would by definition know the best course of action for accomplishing that beings goals. If the Yahweh is omniscient and if the Yahweh has a plan then the Yahweh knows the single best course of action to accomplish this goal. The "choices" then become take said action (not a choice if the being is trying genuinely to accomplish it's goals) or work counter to this plan (indistinguishable from random behavior).
If you see a specific flaw in my logic or in the structure of my argument please offer a specific critique of the argument itself or a pertinent counterfactual.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
god can not be evil by its nature of being morally perfect
So alot to unpack here for such a short post. I'd like to remind you that I don't really like using the word evil. It is a subjective and nonspecific term. That said this seems prescriptive rather than descriptive. That means if the Yahweh as described in the bible doesn't fit in with the prescriptive definition of morally perfect then he cannot be god.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
both
I think I've already explained why it can't be both
and maxiamlly great being
How do we tell the difference between a maximally great being and one who was just really really great? This seems like a difficult thing to determine with any degree of certainty or confidence in our conclusion. Unless you have some useful definition of what precisely makes one maximally great.
Also and this is just a bit more food for thought great is a subjective term that can only really be applied in some context. It could mean large (all beings great and small) or skilled at a particular task (what a great swimmer) just a something that was pleasant (well this has been a great conversation).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Mgb? What is the definition of an mgb? Are we talking a prescriptive or descriptive here?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Do you know the difference between prescriptive and descriptive language?
Prescriptive language is concerned with how words should or ought to be used. For example there are by definition no unmarried bachelors because we take bachelor to mean an unmarried man. This means if there are no unmarried men there are no bachelors. Period. There is no argument about that because that is how prescriptive language works.
Descriptive language by contrast is concerned more with what someone means when they use a term than how that term should be used. If I said of someone descriptively "he sure is an unmarried bachelor" I might mean that although he is married he still promiscuous with single women like a bachelor or that although he is married he and his wife are estranged and he lives alone like a bachelor or even just that his nickname is the married bachelor and regardless of his actual attributes I refer to him as the married bachelor.
Now I'm fine with both kinds of language. Like whatever facilitates the conversation. The trouble comes when the waters get muddied in regards to which we are using.
Like if you are using prescriptive language to say that either a god of love exists or no god at all does that is fine but if then the figure under discussion does not display any of the behaviors or attitudes we traditionally associate with love then we must conclude that the figure under discussion cannot be referred to as a god in the context of our conversation and if you are using descriptive language to say that the Yahweh is a god of love because he loves to be worshipped or because he demands you love him and will punish you if you don't or just that you are defining the Yahweh as a god of love even if he does not fit the prescriptive definition of a loving or godly being that is fine whether he exists or not but what you cannot do is say that he must fit the prescriptive definition of a loving god just because you are referring to him as a god of love descriptively.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
This thread is where we learned that SecularMerlin thinks the donkeys are the most innocent and precious of all the animals.
Their just so cute and dumb. I can't help but love them. My favorite part of the petting zoo as a child.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
Either our actions are caused (determinism) or they are uncaused (indistinguishable from random) neither is compatible with free will and no clever mix of the two magically generates free will.
The same applies to any hypothetical god or spirit by the way.
Either god's actions are caused (determinism) or they are uncaused (indistinguishable from random) neither is compatible with free will and no clever mix of the two magically generates free will.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
I don't actually believe in freewill. I think I it is a logical impossibability. I am therefore willing to accept your preferred definition.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
Ah the old free will argument. Well you haven't actually demonstrated freewill either but assuming it for a moment I have to ask is there free will in heaven? Be careful how you answer because if he can make a truly perfect place with freewill then the work he did down here is unimpressive to me. And again I remind you that for me this is a hypothetical situation not an inconsistent level of credulity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
This is why I did not direct this opening post to you specifically. So far - despite the fact that we do disagree on many things - there is not generally a vitriolic attitude of nastiness prevalent in our discussions. Admittedly I sometimes am sardonic and even over the top. Yet mostly I try to remain calm and balanced in my approach. I value logic and philosophy and good arguments.
I can respect that.
you - who are inconsistent I think in the way you approach the bible as evidence for what you want to attack and then then dismiss it for other things.
I've already explained that I can assess the character of a fictional character. I can also assess the character of a real one. You don't need to demonstrate the reality of your claim for me to make all kinds of value judgements about any being you want to propose. Humans almost can't seem to help making value judgements.
If you meant something else then I welcome clarification on the issue.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Christians whether you agree with them or not - take the character of God not only from how he is presented in the Bible but at the author as well.
Why does it matter what Christians believe? They have not to my knowledge met the burden of proof necessary to support any such claim. Also your beliefs don't change the words on the page and honestly if the Yahweh is the author that is almost worse. That means he himself articulated his own guilt in multiple genocides as either the perpetrator or the ringleader. So no matter who wrote the bible and whatever you believe and whether it is non fiction partly fiction or completely fiction the Yahweh has what I judge to be poor moral character.
ridicule and mock people of a religious manner.
I'm not mocking any poster here. I am arguably mocking a likely fictional character in a very old very questionable book. I'm not even trying to mock the Yahweh. I'm just being honest about my observations and opinions regarding the story that we have agreed to use as the reference material. I have not mentioned any of the posters here in a mocking or derogatory way. If you are offended just by someone questioning and disagreeing with your beliefs then debate might not be your thing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
it was morally right, it has to be
Why does it have to be? It doesn't seem to be. I'm getting some pretty serious cognitive dissonance here. You know who talks like that? An abused spouse. "No really he loves me" "he does it for my own good" "it's my own fault for (insert minor transgressions of your choice, maybe spilling god's beer or coveting some stuff)"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I don't care what excuse was given to pardon his monstrous behavior. Nothing can make what he did morally correct. According to the bible he is a genuine monster. He seems to have all of humanities biggest flaws blown up to cartoonish proportions. I'm willing to bet that of some human did a tiny (by comparison) genocide you wouldn't care what their reasons were you would just pronounce them immoral and rightfully so. Honestly I don't know why you are even trying to defend wiping out all of humanity and starting again. That isn't the plan of a loving god it is the plan of a James Bond villain.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
So he was a loving god... that killed a bunch of babies. I'm having a bit of trouble understanding how you can make that argument. I remain unconvinced. Do you know who loves me? My mother. She raised me and supported me and protected me from harm and she didn't expect a thing in return. Actually I think it cost her rather a lot. In money and stretch marks and gray hair. That's love. Please don't compare the kind of love my mother showed me to whatever emotion the Yahweh had that made him sorry he ever made humans and also informed his decision to kill just a whole bunch of babies and donkeys on more than one occasion. That is some of the most toxic "love" I've ever heard of. In reality or fiction.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
if everyone was corrupted, obviously the children was or going to grow up corrupted
What kind of all powerful god can't even save the babies and provide them a chance to grow up in a good environment? I have to say if he just couldn't do that I don't think much of his omnipotence and if he could Idon't think much of his decision not to.
he was sorry he made us
Then why not make people he would like in the first place? What kind of all knowing god doesn't know ahead of time the people he was making wouldn't be up to his standards? If he didn't know how things were going to turn out I don't think much of his omniscience and if he did I don't think much of his decision to create a bunch of people knowingly that he was just going to make suffer and die for being exactly what he created them to be.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
The Yahweh was wrong for killing all the innocent babies and children and donkeys in a flood. I honestly don't care what his excuse for doing so is that is some heinous shit. The babies and the donkeys were not doing anything wrong. He killed them anyway. That's not the only time he killed a bunch of babies either. Actually killing babies was so important to him that he hardened Pharoah's heart so he wouldn't release the Jews until he got the chance to kill some. (In the story of course there is no archeological evidence of Egyptians owning Hebrews although the Babylonians by all accounts kept some)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
So all the babies and the donkeys were evil? The donkeys man? Why kill all the donkeys? Oh and the babies. Them too.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
evidence for an evil god?
It's your bible. Don't you read it? He killed every man woman child and beast on earth except for a handful in a great flood (possibly the most complete genocide in history or fiction) he convicts you for secretly desiring to own something your neighbor does (convicting people for thought crime is one of his big ten) and if you want to hear his views on workforce management read your leviticus may I recommend chapter 25 verses 44-46.
Just to be clear I don't really like the word evil I prefer immoral. It is closer to what I actually mean.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
how would it cheapen you love with your family?
Because unlike the love you are alluding to I can actually tell it is there and nothing is asked of me in return for it.
Whether the bible is partly or completely fictional I am of the intractable opinion that genocide, the buying and selling of people as property and the convicting people of thought crime are all immoral. Does your opinion on these subjects really differ appreciably from mine?probably not but im sure its nothing
Then I may have bad news for you about the Yahweh as described in the old testament.like what?
Like that he seems to be ok with genocide, the buying and selling of people as property and the convicting of people for thought crime. At least according to the source material which says the same thing about the Yahweh whether or not the Yahweh actually exists.
Created:
Posted in:
Whether the bible is partly or completely fictional I am of the intractable opinion that genocide, the buying and selling of people as property and the convicting people of thought crime are all immoral. Does your opinion on these subjects really differ appreciably from mine?probably not but im sure its nothing
Then I may have bad news for you about the Yahweh as described in the old testament.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
God loves you
Bald assertion. Also it cheapens the actual love I feel for my family who observable reciprocate my love. I would actually very much appreciate if you didn't say things like this to me.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
The answer to the topic is no. There's a very clear condition on god's love: you have to love him and believe in him and follow his laws. Otherwise you are either ignored and annihilated (this is the softest way Christians have com eup with to deal with stuff like a hindu child who dies at 9 years old from cancer) or you are punished for all eternity, which is not something people who love someone else would do. Finite transgressions have finite punishments not eternal ones.
Well stated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Whether the bible is partly or completely fictional I am of the intractable opinion that genocide, the buying and selling of people as property and the convicting people of thought crime are all immoral. Does your opinion on these subjects really differ appreciably from mine?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
but the analogy is withiut merit as the writer admits it is a story
I admit that I consider the bible is just a story. Now what? If we hold different views on the subject how do we resolve this difference of opinion?
More importantly since I can make moral judgements concerning Voldemort even whith the understanding that it is just a story I would still be able to make moral judgements about the Yahweh even though the bible would appear to be just a story. That rather invalidates the basic complaint you have with regards to atheists (or indeed people of faith who do not share your opinion that the Yahweh is the one true god) using the book to discuss the Yahweh's moral characteristics while simultaneously rejecting it as a valid claim about reality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
so what is with harry potter and the Bible?
It is known as an analogy. It is an argument meant to show a corollary such as whether one can use written accounts as evidence for the characteristics of characters described within whether or not those characters actually exist.
and you are rightif it was real, you can not deny haryy potter and deny truths about the book
Excellent. Glad you accept the premise. Now all you have to do is demonstrate somehow that the bible is not a fictitious book in order to make the case that we cannot deny "truths" about the book. Otherwise like Harry Potter we can simply assess it as a fiction.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
the Bible never admits itself to be fiction
Harry potter does not implicitly state that it is a work of fiction within the text we simply accept that it is fictional. So either the bible is fictional or it is not but in either case its contents can be used to determine the moral characteristics of the Yahweh as described within. I do not need to do more than acknowledge that there is a book and it says some stuff in order to discuss the stuff it says.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
You cannot use the Bible to show that God is evil but reject the other cialims in itgood point
You cannot use Harry Potter series to show that Voldemort is evil but reject the idea that magic is real.
Good point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
It seems to be quite ok to use the bible by non-believers as evidence of how bad and evil God is when they want to make a point about the evils of religion. So at that point it is considered ok to be evidence.
Only if it is the agreed upon source material for assessing the character of the hypothetical god under discussion. If for example you had been told to refer to the book rather than to any Christian(s) in order to make such determinations. In much the same way one might use Star Wars movies to assess Han Solo's competence as an escape artist even while accepting that Star Wars is not useful in determining any facit of reality because it is a work of fiction. I am perfectly happy to entertain hypothetical situations and discuss the characteristics of fictional characters.
In other words even if there is no Yahweh the figure presented in the bible can still be discussed using the source material as a guide for said discussion.
Created:
-->
@Crocodile
well i mean that's if god existed in the first place ;)
I am perfectly willing to entertain a hypothetical situation and also to discuss the ramifications of fictional characters and their actions.
Created:
I am sorry, I don't understand how you say Adam and Eve were created flawed. What particular flaw are we talking about?
Whichever flaw led to the fall. Perhaps gullibility in that they were taken in by the snake or perhaps willfulness in that they did not follow instructions. I am not prepared to commit to a particular flaw necessarily but those are two possibilities. Whatever argument you want to offer they clearly were not worthy of continued residency in the garden. Any argument to the contrary is in direct conflict of the story. They were deemed unworthy by their actions and ejected fro the garden by the Yahweh.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
(IF) the Yahweh created Adam and Eve (AND) they were flawed enough to eat the fruit (AND) the Yahweh is all knowing and all powerful (THEN) he intentionally created beings that did not live up to his standards.
Why not simply create beings who were worthier than Adam and Eve to begin with? Whatever flaw in our character led to the fall was put there by the Yahweh if the bible is to be believed.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
Put more plainly the Yahweh's first mistake was making flawed and unworthy beings. If you are right about the picture the bible paints of our our character as a species then according to the bible it is Yahweh who decided to make us so shoddily.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
According to the source material the Yahweh is all knowing and all powerful. He didn't just know they were going to piss him off but specifically how. Why bother with testing people if you already know what the results of the test will be? Indeed if you are truly all powerful and we are so flawed and unworthy why not make less flawed more worthy beings to start with? At a certain point if a self driving car keeps running into people the designer will have to take some responsibility for his creation and the Yahweh is only more culpable since if he is all powerful he should have been able to make people that would not piss him off or create the need to suffer. In fact if people created the need to suffer and the Yahweh created them knowing they would create the need to suffer doesn't that mean the Yahweh created the need to suffer by proxy?
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
Creating beings he knew ahead of time would piss him off and then punishing them for pissing him off.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
That's quite a gish gallop could we focus on just one thing at a time? Whatever you wouldlike to focus on.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
Well that is excusing god for condoning, ordering and even perpetuating genocide. I think you and I are just fundamental in disagreement about what constitutes an immoral act. Adam and Eve aside and condoning rape and buying and selling people as though they were property aside I just can't justify killing an entire population of people including dashing the babies upon the rocks with the notable exception of taking the virgins as spoils of war. That is abominable and if you disagree then you are in my opinion also immoral and I can't conceive of an argument that would change my mind.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
Are you claiming that an all powerful all knowing invincible entity was somehow victimized? I'm afraid I don't follow your logic.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
I don't think it paints God's character in a negative manner. I think it paints humanity in a bad light.
In other words the bible is engaged in victim blaming and the enabling of an abuser, though in all likelihood only a fictional one thank goodness.
Created:
Posted in:
I don't think it is si much a problem of definition as usage. Sure you could define faith as any strongly held belief but then there is still a difference between holding a belief strongly because there is some demonstration of the proposition and holding a belief because it is comforting or because your parents taught it to you or because with or without evidence you personally cannot imagine another answer.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
I think you have things in reverse here. You are the one who has to explain why the bible as translated into english paints such a negative picture of the Yahweh's character. I'm just not especially interested in your explanation. No more than any other attempt at victim blaming or excusing of an abuser.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
I would prefer you to work the logic with me.
To what purpose? So that we can then move on to the next questionable thing in the bible in regards to the Yahweh's character and then the next and the next and the next and you can excuse genocide and immoral moral pronouncements? I think instead I'd rather tell you a story.
I have a friend and once we were discussing the scene from the Empire Strike's Back where Han Solo is frozen in carbonite. I don't know if you remember it but he has his hands cuffed behind his back when he is lowered into the apparatus but the stage prop of the frozen Han has his hands up as though to ward off some horror.
I was amused by the continuity error but he was not. In fact he insisted that it wasn't a continuity error at all because "in the extended universe" Han was taught the art of escape. I don't remember how or by whom honestly but you sort of remind me of that. Trying to explain away things that don't fit your image of Yahweh's character with post hoc rationalizations when such inconsistencies are just to be expected in a work of fiction.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
Why don't you tell me what you think and why it even matters? I think it would save time.
Created: