Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Michael Nugent speaks for Atheism

13567

Comments

  • #102
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Penn wrote: »
    Well, I'd consider tornados, landslides, flooding, hurricanes, earthquakes and volcanos to be pretty poor design.

    A cursed (or re-modelled :)) creation not containing the above would strike me as somewhat toothless a cursed creation.


  • #103
    Penn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,242 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    A cursed (or re-modelled :)) creation not containing the above would strike me as somewhat toothless a cursed creation.

    But, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't God create Adam and Eve on the sixth day, then on the seventh, declared the Earth to be "good". It was after that that Eve ate the apple and God cursed them. So, the tornados etc were already created before the fall of man. So, God created a cursed creation from the beginning, thereby putting man in an unwinnable scenario; a Kobayashi-Maru if you will.


  • #104
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Penn wrote: »
    But, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't God create Adam and Eve on the sixth day, then on the seventh, declared the Earth to be "good". It was after that that Eve ate the apple and God cursed them. So, the tornados etc were already created before the fall of man. So, God created a cursed creation from the beginning, thereby putting man in an unwinnable scenario; a Kobayashi-Maru if you will.

    God cursed the ground (not just them) on account of their sin. Thus tornados etc. (is the Christian view)

    If you want to discuss the Euthyphro Dilemma with someone who holds to a non-Christian view of Genesis then you'd need to take it up with them.


  • #105
    Penn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,242 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    God cursed the ground (not just them) on account of their sin. Thus tornados etc. (is the Christian view)

    So the world as we know it isn't the world that God looked upon and said that it was good. Because of their sin, he cursed the ground, thereby changing the world that he said was good into something else.


  • #106
    UDP
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,188 ✭✭✭UDP


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    God cursed the ground (not just them) on account of their sin. Thus tornados etc. (is the Christian view)
    Curses us all and where we live but expects us to love him and believe he loves us. Sounds like a bit of an egoistic a$$hole to me. I guess satan was the good guy.


  • #107
    Knasher
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,370 ✭✭✭Knasher


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    My position would see "that which aligns with God's will (whether it is God acting or nature acting or us acting)" as a grouping befitting a general label. That label need not have (what is perceived from our perspective as a) a 'moral' componant. That label is 'good'.

    So, when God looked upon all he had created and declared it good, he was saying "this is as I want it to be". When we act in the manner he asks of us (with the heart he desires lying behind our acting) he say's the same thing.

    Also, God's will stems from his character which is immutable.

    -

    What dilemmas are you supposing of this position?

    I'm not necessarily arguing against this view yet, I would just like you to flesh out your position a little more before I respond if that is okay.

    Would it be fair to say that if follows from your view that the set of things that god has defined as good are completely arbitrary? After all if good is defined in terms of the will of god then you can't turn around and say that the will of god is good without falling into a meaningless tautology. For the same reason, saying that god is good is meaningless. It would also follow from that to say that god cannot be a rational being.

    The other thing I'd like to question is when you state that gods character is immutable. I'm just curious what your thoughts on the old testament are then. A common reply whenever somebody touts something barbaric from the old testament, is that because of the new testament that barbarism is no longer applicable. It would seem to me that this constitutes an example of god changing his mind and then his will couldn't be immutable.

    The last thing I'd like to ask is if you adhere to the view that god is omniscient? It relates to the immutable statement but I'd like your reply before I expand on it.


  • #108
    Michael Nugent
    Registered Users Posts: 1,086 ✭✭✭Michael Nugent


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    My position would see "that which aligns with God's will (whether it is God acting or nature acting or us acting)" as a grouping befitting a general label. That label need not have (what is perceived from our perspective as a) a 'moral' componant. That label is 'good'.
    If I read you correctly, you are saying that

    1. The grouping of ‘all that your god wants to happen’ needs a label.
    2. That label need not have (what we see as) a ‘moral’ component.
    3. You are using the label ‘good’ to represent this grouping.

    But that is not addressing the Euthyphro dilemma, which is about the grouping itself, not about the label that you put on it.

    You are saying nothing about whether the grouping itself (i.e. ‘all that your god wants to happen’) needs to have (what we see as) a moral component.

    What is your belief about that?
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Also, God's will stems from his character which is immutable.
    Immutably what? Immutably good? immutably evil? Immutably ambivalent? Immutably arbitrary?

    And how do you know?


  • #109
    liamw
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,780 ✭✭✭liamw


    Michael Nugent wrote: »
    Immutably what? Immutably good? immutably evil? Immutably ambivalent? Immutably arbitrary?

    Immutably mysterious.


  • #110
    Michael Nugent
    Registered Users Posts: 1,086 ✭✭✭Michael Nugent


    Antiskeptic, to help me to more clearly understand what your position is...

    When you say that you are using the label ‘good’ to describe ‘all that your god wants to happen’, is that is the only meaning that you attach to the label ‘good’?

    Or do you also use the label ‘good’ (in a different context) to describe what we humans typically mean by ‘good’ i.e. some variation of morally virtuous?


  • #111
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Penn wrote: »
    So the world as we know it isn't the world that God looked upon and said that it was good. Because of their sin, he cursed the ground, thereby changing the world that he said was good into something else.

    Indeed.

    And taking our definition of good being that which "aligns with God's will"

    - the world was good pre-fall. It was as God wanted it to be.

    - the world is good post-fall. God wanted to give Adam choice involving consequences and so, it was his will that those promised consequences would be delivered on following Adams choice. We can say the world is now aligned with God's will (informed and modified as that will is by the presence of Adams choice)


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Michael Nugent wrote: »
    If I read you correctly, you are saying that

    1. The grouping of ‘all that your god wants to happen’ needs a label.
    2. That label need not have (what we see as) a ‘moral’ component.
    3. You are using the label ‘good’ to represent this grouping.


    But that is not addressing the Euthyphro dilemma, which is about the grouping itself, not about the label that you put on it.

    You are saying nothing about whether the grouping itself (i.e. ‘all that your god wants to happen’) needs to have (what we see as) a moral component.

    What is your belief about that?


    Let's suppose a God who has a strong, negative reaction in the core of his being .. in the face of gross selfishness. Let's suppose that he is always offended and outraged when witnessing that selfishness - albeit more intensely than we (collectively, if not always universally or consistently) are offended and outraged in our witnessing of it.

    And let's suppose that he is immutable in his being offended by selfishness so. That unlike us, God has no choice in the matter of being offended so (although he has means in which the offence can be dealt with such that different outcomes might follow as a result of his being offended)

    Finally let us suppose that God has, in his assembly of us and for the purposes he has for us, equipped us with something he himself hasn't got or have a need for. A sense of "ought" and "ought not" (or a moral sense if you will). This moral sense acts to counter a pull in the direction of contra-God's will (sin).

    This ought/ought not sense informs us in one-step removed fashion what God's will is and what God's will isn't. Equipped so, we can respond to what God approves of and what God detests without our having to believe God exists. And we can experience something of what God experiences in our aligning or not with his will. Our moral sense will be stimulated this way and that depending on which way we go.


    As for "moral component" in our acting selfishly or not? According to the above schema, "moral component" or "absolute wrong" or "good or bad" (as we generally understand them) are all terms which ultimately derive from "the will of God". We consider selfishness as morally bad because that of us which is made in the image of God responds as God himself responds to it.

    God himself obviously isn't subject to moral measurement or evalulation given that morality is something which is derived from his will and which references his will in it's activity within moral agents.

    As it happens he detests selfishness. And as immutable on that score he will always detest selfishness. If God happened to have different immutable characteristics - if he adored selfishness and tuned our ought/ought not accordingly - then the argument would be the same - except that selfishness would be 'good'.

    Since he is immutable however, the arbitrary/capricious dilemma (which supposes today's good could be tomorrows bad) doesn't stand.


    Immutably what? Immutably good? immutably evil? Immutably ambivalent? Immutably arbitrary?

    Immutably hating selfishness. For example.

    And how do you know?

    Why, the Bible tells me so..

    :)


  • #113
    Arcus Arrow
    Registered Users Posts: 296 ✭✭Arcus Arrow


    antiskeptic wrote: »

    Why, the Bible tells me so..

    :)

    Have you read the OP?

    Would your Bible give you an answer to the following question:

    If the term atheists only means people who do not themselves believe in the existence of gods then how can anyone purporting to speak on their behalf ascribe to them attitudes, attributes, standards of behaviour, predictable reactions etc without qualifying in some way which atheists they are referring to?

    It's a question that professed Irish atheists are studiously avoiding but it's based on the OP unlike your sidetrack.


  • #114
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Arcus Arrow wrote: »
    Have you read the OP?

    Nope, but I did read the letter linked there and commented on same


    Would your Bible give you an answer to the following question:

    If the term atheists only means people who do not themselves believe in the existence of gods then how can anyone purporting to speak on their behalf ascribe to them attitudes, attributes, standards of behaviour, predictable reactions etc without qualifying in some way which atheists they are referring to?

    The bible does indeed have an answer to that.

    It suggests that people who don't believe in God don't believe in nothing at all in his place. Rather, they will believe in something else (aka: a false god). Since these false gods are, at root, meeting the same need the unbeliever has, it wouldn't be at all surprising that one person could speak on behalf of others who worship the same sub-brand of false god.

    The atheist might well attempt to avoid inquiry by stating his position to be merely a lack of belief in god(s). But the something else he believes in (naturalism / empiricism for example) will be common to many other atheists. Attitudes and practices derived from those overarching philosophical positions will produce an outlook that too common to many.

    And so Micheal Nugent will find that he can speak 'for all'. More than a Christian can speak for all Christians .. in all likelyhood.


  • #115
    Arcus Arrow
    Registered Users Posts: 296 ✭✭Arcus Arrow


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Nope, but I did read the letter linked there and commented on same

    If you read the OP you might not be going so off topic. What letter are you referring to?
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    The bible does indeed have an answer to that.

    What passage of the bible would that be?
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    It suggests that people who don't believe in God don't believe in nothing at all in his place. Rather, they will believe in something else (aka: a false god). Since these false gods are, at root, meeting the same need the unbeliever has, it wouldn't be at all surprising that one person could speak on behalf of others who worship the same sub-brand of false god.

    Not believing in gods does not require believing in a replacement. For anything else to be a case of being a false god or a replacement belief it would have to be believed in by being given the same qualities as a god. Anything that constitutes the attributes of a god can't be believed in by an atheist because then they wouldn't be an atheist.

    Whey do you say the bible "suggests". Is your god one of hints and allegations? Nudge nudge wink wink doesn't sound like a very efficient way for a god thing to communicate to it's underlings.
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    The atheist might well attempt to avoid inquiry by stating his position to be merely a lack of belief in god(s). But the something else he believes in (naturalism / empiricism for example) will be common to many other atheists. Attitudes and practices derived from those overarching philosophical positions will produce an outlook that too common to many.

    To not believe in the childish idea of an enormous complicated universe controlling entity, billions and billions of years old that no one has any proof of does not require believing in anything else.
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    And so Micheal Nugent will find that he can speak 'for all'. More than a Christian can speak for all Christians .. in all likelyhood.

    So in your opinion for a self appointed spokesman to speak on behalf of atheists they would have to be part of a common belief system? Atheism would have to be considered a religion in other words. Is that correct?

    Are least you weren't afraid to answer the question, fair play to ya.


  • #116
    Michael Nugent
    Registered Users Posts: 1,086 ✭✭✭Michael Nugent


    Antiskeptic, to distill your suppositions, you seem to be suggesting the following:

    Your god is offended and outraged by certain things, including as one example witnessing selfishness. To avoid being offended and outraged, your god has placed within human beings a sense that causes us to tend towards not doing such things. We humans call this sense ‘morality’. The things that your god is offended or outraged by are dependent on his immutable characteristics. His immutable characteristics happen to include, as one example, being offended and outraged by selfishness, so selfishness is always ‘bad’. If his immutable characteristics had happened to include the opposite, then selfishness would always be ‘good’. You know this because the bible says so.

    Is that a fair summary of your suppositions? If not, please let me know. If so, let us plug those particular suppositions into the Euthyphro dilemma.

    If your god’s desires and dislikes are based on his immutable characteristics, then your god has no control over what makes him offended or outraged. This means that any ‘morality’ based on his desires and dislikes is arbitrary, as it is based merely on what his immutable characteristics happened to be. Under these suppositions, morality is merely a label for obeying or pacifying a tyrant whose desires are more important than ours simply because he is more powerful than we are. It follows from this that there is no just reason to follow any alleged commands of such a god, and that there are just reasons to ignore any alleged commands of such a god. And this is particularly so for many of the alleged commands that are found in the Christian bible.

    If I have understood your suppositions accurately, they actually come out worse for the god argument than either of the traditional horns of the Euthyphro dilemma. This is because they assume that your god has no control of over what offends or outrages him, and thus has no control over what he wants to see happen. He thus does not command things to be right or wrong because of either of the traditional horns of the dilemma. In fact he does not really command anything in any meaningful way. He simply wants things to happen in such a way that his immutable characteristics happen to not make him offended or outraged.


  • #117
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Michael Nugent wrote: »
    It follows from this that there is no just reason to follow any alleged commands of such a god, and that there are just reasons to ignore any alleged commands of such a god. And this is particularly so for many of the alleged commands that are found in the Christian bible.

    I'll just play devils advocate for a moment (ironically the christian is the devil here :))
    The word "just" referring to "natural justice" is the same as right or righteousness in this context. So according to the theist stance, the commands of the god are in fact "just" commands, simply because they emanate from the god.
    Hence antiskeptic remains trapped in this endless loop of the god's self-justification. Which may well be comforting for antiskeptic.


  • #118
    Michael Nugent
    Registered Users Posts: 1,086 ✭✭✭Michael Nugent


    recedite wrote: »
    I'll just play devils advocate for a moment (ironically the christian is the devil here :))
    The word "just" referring to "natural justice" is the same as right or righteousness in this context. So according to the theist stance, the commands of the god are in fact "just" commands, simply because they emanate from the god.
    Hence antiskeptic remains trapped in this endless loop of the god's self-justification. Which may well be comforting for antiskeptic.
    That's a fair point. If you detach morality and justice from what we typically mean by right and wrong, then there is no reason at all to follow the commands of Antiskeptic's god. They are just random urges that we can choose to act on or ignore.

    Although in reality Antiskeptic's position is gained by playing with labels, rather than addressing reality. We have taken the labels that we usually associate with morality (right, wrong, good, bad, justice, injustice etc) and applied those labels to the supposed will of this god. However, the reality of our sense of right, wrong, good, bad, justice, injustice etc (independently of the god's will) still exist, although we now have no label for them. So let's take the underlying causes of those realities, which are things like our sense of compassion, empathy, fairness, reason etc. Many of us will still base our behavior on compassion, empathy, fairness and reason when those senses clash with the supposed commands of this god.

    As an aside, there is another irony in Antiskeptic's god. He is offended and outraged by selfishness in others, yet his main overall focus is the incredibly selfish desire to have every other living being behave in such a way as not to offend him.


  • #119
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Michael Nugent wrote: »
    Antiskeptic, to distill your suppositions, you seem to be suggesting the following:

    Let's have a look..


    Your god is offended and outraged by certain things, including as one example witnessing selfishness.

    Correct.


    To avoid being offended and outraged, your god has placed within human beings a sense that causes us to tend towards not doing such things. We humans call this sense ‘morality’.

    Incorrect. His motivation for equipping us so wasn't stated/implied as having to do with avoiding being offended. The expression used (but not elaborated on) was: "Finally let us suppose that God has, in his assembly of us and for the purposes he has for us, equipped us....".

    His equipping us with a moral sense has to do with his purposes concerning us. Indeed, it's important to realise that our offending him plays a central role in the mechanism he has deployed in order that we might be saved. He utilizes our sin in the process of saving us - a bit like fighting fire with fire. So don't stop sinning whatever you do!


    The things that your god is offended or outraged by are dependent on his immutable characteristics. His immutable characteristics happen to include, as one example, being offended and outraged by selfishness, so selfishness is always ‘bad’. If his immutable characteristics had happened to include the opposite, then selfishness would always be ‘good’. You know this because the bible says so.


    Correct.


    Is that a fair summary of your suppositions? If not, please let me know. If so, let us plug those particular suppositions into the Euthyphro dilemma.


    Okay. I don't know if the clarification above above will make any difference to what you have to say.


    If your god’s desires and dislikes are based on his immutable characteristics, then your god has no control over what makes him offended or outraged.

    Correct.


    This means that any ‘morality’ based on his desires and dislikes is arbitrary, as it is based merely on what his immutable characteristics happened to be.


    Could you explain what you understand by 'arbitrary' here? This example

    1. Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.
    ..does fit since God's choice isn't random - it's immutable and fixed. Nor is it based on personal whim since whim is defined as

    A sudden desire or change of mind


    ...and that doesn't fit with immutability.


    Under these suppositions, morality is merely a label for obeying or pacifying a tyrant whose desires are more important than ours simply because he is more powerful than we are.



    "Morality" is a label for an influence God subjects you to without your being able to know it's him subjecting you to it. The influence isn't such that it overwhelms your desire to go in a different direction (indeed, if you really want to, you can succeed in killing off the restraint imposed by morality altogether: Fred West? Hitler? Stalin?)

    Your response to God (which is made up of more than moral responses) is the determining factor in whether you spend eternity with God or without God. That's what your life here on Earth is aimed at achieving for you. This existance is the means whereby you get to choose.

    Your desire is so valued by God that it will stand (and be experienced by you) for all eternity. If God and what he stands for is not what you want then get it you shan't.




    It follows from this that there is no just reason to follow any alleged commands of such a god, and that there are just reasons to ignore any alleged commands of such a god. And this is particularly so for many of the alleged commands that are found in the Christian bible.

    What follows is that the terms you use aren't relevant. What follows is that only two things matter:

    - your response to God

    - what God is like in fact.

    If God happens to be about what Christianity holds him to be about and if your final answer to him indicates that you want and need what he is about then you will spend eternity with him.

    The reason why you follow his commands (and break them) everyday will carry on despite your protestations. Do you think the model of God you labour under makes any difference to your responding to God for the reasons you do?


    If I have understood your suppositions accurately, they actually come out worse for the god argument than either of the traditional horns of the Euthyphro dilemma.

    Is that another way of saying the Euthyphro Dilemma doesn't apply here.


    Q.E.D?



    This is because they assume that your god has no control of over what offends or outrages him, and thus has no control over what he wants to see happen. He thus does not command things to be right or wrong because of either of the traditional horns of the dilemma. In fact he does not really command anything in any meaningful way. He simply wants things to happen in such a way that his immutable characteristics happen to not make him offended or outraged.


    You seem to be resting this bit on an incorrect understanding of what I was saying (see earlier)

    One way of viewing things is to see our existence here as a preparatory stage. A kind of gestation period where created, willed beings are first asked whether they want to be with God or not. Once that's decided upon, once everyone has opted for what it is they want, then the real show commences. Those who want what God stands for "enter glory" where the fullness of God is revealed (it's only revealed in part and by degree here), those that don't end up on the rubbish tip.

    In this period, God (who hates eg: selfishness) is held "in tension". He must tolerate selfish expression for the duration of the gestation period. Once that's over however, God will return "to equilibrium". There will be no more selfishness either from those in glory (they will have been recreated without ability to sin) or those in Hell (they will be utterly confined and unable to express will unto anything that would effect Gods equilibrium.

    In all cases, people will have willed where they are on themselves. No one will be in a position to complain.

    I think it's all rather neat myself. Divinely so in that there doesn't appear to be loose ends.


  • #120
    Michael Nugent
    Registered Users Posts: 1,086 ✭✭✭Michael Nugent


    Have to go out now, so will reply in detail later. But two quick points:
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Incorrect. His motivation for equipping us so wasn't stated/implied as having to do with avoiding being offended. The expression used (but not elaborated on) was: "Finally let us suppose that God has, in his assembly of us and for the purposes he has for us, equipped us....". His equipping us with a moral sense has to do with his purposes concerning us.
    What are his purposes for us?
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Could you explain what you understand by 'arbitrary' here? This example
    1. Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.
    ..does fit since God's choice isn't random - it's immutable and fixed. Nor is it based on personal whim since whim is defined as

    A sudden desire or change of mind

    ...and that doesn't fit with immutability.
    His will is arbitrary in that it is based on his characteristics, and his characteristics are arbitrary (whether or not they are immutable) because they could have been different but happen not to be. As you said earlier, he might have had characteristics that caused him to love selfishness, but as it happens he doesn't.

    Also, the supposed immutability of his will could be challenged based on reading the bible, but let's park that for a while and run with the supposition of immutability.


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Michael Nugent wrote: »
    Have to go out now, so will reply in detail later. But two quick points:


    What are his purposes for us?

    At this stage in our existance (I referred in my post to this earthly existence being a precursor-event, a place where a certain 'sifting out' occurs before the main, eternal event is ushered in) his purpose has to do with presenting us with a choice. And extracting an answer from us.

    We don't get to influence what the options offered are nor do we get the option to spoil our vote.


    Whilst there are many aspects to the setting up of this choice, morality plays an important part because it is, in effect, a place where the godly image in which we were made and the sinful nature with which that image has been infected and distorted, get to make their respective claim for our affections.

    Whilst not aware perhaps that there is a divine plan in progress, most of will be aware of the pull of "good" and "evil" on us and stemming from within us.


    Our doing what we feel we 'ought to' in the face of temptation to the contrary (or our shouldering and suffering the guilt that comes with not doing what we feel we 'ought to')* is little more than a choice on our part, in that instance, to align ourselves with what is godly. And vice versa.

    *where the 'ought' stems from what God has installed

    His will is arbitrary in that it is based on his characteristics, and his characteristics are arbitrary (whether or not they are immutable) because they could have been different but happen not to be. As you said earlier, he might have had characteristics that caused him to love selfishness, but as it happens he doesn't.

    The E/D use of arbitrary suggested a "what's good today could be bad tomorrow" kind of arbitrariness. A whimsical, capricious, randomly shifting thing.

    If there's a dilemma attaching to an immutable God for whom selfishness will always be viewed negatively then I'd be glad to discuss that.


    Also, the supposed immutability of his will could be challenged based on reading the bible, but let's park that for a while and run with the supposition of immutability.

    Okay.


  • #122
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Michael Nugent wrote: »
    the reality of our sense of right, wrong, good, bad, justice, injustice etc (independently of the god's will) still exist, although we now have no label for them. So let's take the underlying causes of those realities, which are things like our sense of compassion, empathy, fairness, reason etc. Many of us will still base our behavior on compassion, empathy, fairness and reason when those senses clash with the supposed commands of this god.
    This seems to be the difference between the Christian god and the Greek gods. The Greek gods were thought to be individually fallible, and to sometimes squabble amongst themselves, or "behave badly". But it was thought that what pleased them, in general, was "good" behaviour among mortals and gods. But who decided what was good? Hence the Euthypro Dilemma.

    The Christian god is said to be immutably good, and therefore he becomes the standard for goodness. To follow his commands and/or revealed will is to be good. In this scenario, morality is simply acting in accordance with the god's will, which is always good and just in the normal sense of those words.

    The Islamic position is apparently slightly different; they give priority to acting on god's will, and recognise that this can sometimes conflict with our intuitive sense of empathy or morality. This makes it more dangerous. It seems that if the Islamic god changed his mind on something, then the new command would become "right" and the obsolete one "wrong". The christian god, being immutable, is unable to change his mind (although perhaps that makes him not quite omnipotent?)

    Take the story of Abraham & Isaac;
    God sent Abraham up a mountain to kill his son Isaac. Just before the (evil?) deed was done, the god told Abraham he was only joking; it was just a test. Abraham was very relieved, and they all laughed it off.

    Now, the first time I heard that story, I knew it was morally repugnant.
    Because if it was objectively wrong to kill the boy, then it did not matter whether the god had decided to do it on a whim, it would still be wrong.

    The Abrahamic religions, on the other hand, taught that it was "good" to kill the boy so long as God supported that course of action. In other words, the only objective morality is to mimic the behaviour of this god character. However the behaviour itself is entirely subjective, it derives only from the god's point of view. Whereas most people will intuitively know that killing the boy was always going to be wrong.

    The problem for Christians is that they have moved on to a position where god's will and what is righteous/pious/intuitively moral is supposed to be the same thing.
    But a quick look at the bible reveals lots of instances where they are not.
    Such as the stonings or the above "threatened boy sacrifice" incident, or the "jesus taking his anger out on a fig tree by turning it to stone" incident.


  • #123
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    recedite wrote: »
    Take the story of Abraham & Isaac;
    God sent Abraham up a mountain to kill his son Isaac. Just before the (evil?) deed was done, the god told Abraham he was only joking; it was just a test. Abraham was very relieved, and they all laughed it off.

    Now, the first time I heard that story, I knew it was morally repugnant.
    Because if it was objectively wrong to kill the boy, then it did not matter whether the god had decided to do it on a whim, it would still be wrong.


    God grants life to persons for a duration of His choosing. And he takes it away again at a moment of His choosing. No ones death takes God by surprise. No ones death takes place in such a way as to frustrate God's ultimate plan wrt that person.

    Whether the person is a boy and the instrument of removal of life is the boys father or whether the person is an old man and the instrument of removal of life is God-cause death by old age - it makes no difference.

    If you are to find God killing "morally" repugnant then you need to be consistant and find it repugnant across the board. And need to explain where on earth you get the idea that you, Isaac .. or anyone else, has an unassailable right to retain that which God gave them for longer than he decides to given it.


  • #124
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    God grants life to persons for a duration of His choosing. [...] Whether the person is a boy and the instrument of removal of life is the boys father [...] it makes no difference.
    There's your problem, right there.

    How exactly do you conclude safely that the father is acting with the authority of the creator of the universe when he chooses to execute his son. Rather than, say, having simply gone bonkers?

    Does it not worry you that people feel free to grant themselves this authority? And that religion allows, even encourages, them to? And that most (religious) people seem to have no problem with that?


  • #125
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    If you are to find God killing "morally" repugnant then you need to be consistant and find it repugnant across the board.
    Indeed I always consider the murder of an innocent to be repugnant.
    And need to explain where on earth you get the idea that you, Isaac .. or anyone else, has an unassailable right to retain that which God gave them for longer than he decides to given it.
    I find no evidence that this god gave me anything.


  • #126
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    robindch wrote: »
    There's your problem, right there.

    How exactly do you conclude safely that the father is acting with the authority of the creator of the universe when he chooses to execute his son. Rather than, say, having simply gone bonkers?

    That's not my problem. That's the fathers problem.

    But if it were about to happen today before my eyes I'd take my overall understanding of "the unfolding drama of redemption", conclude that this person was bonkers and take steps to stop him.





    Does it not worry you that people feel free to grant themselves this authority? And that religion allows, even encourages, them to? And that most (religious) people seem to have no problem with that?

    Are you pro-choice?


  • Advertisement
  • #127
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    recedite wrote: »
    Indeed I always consider the murder of an innocent to be repugnant.

    Hopefully you'll be convinced of your guilt before Judgment.

    I find no evidence that this god gave me anything.

    But he gave Isaac it and you find that story morally repugnant. Continue..


  • #128
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    That's not my problem.
    In all fairness, it is your problem :) you're the one who's trying to make out that this view of things is reasonable. The above is a massive hole in it.
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    But if it were about to happen today before my eyes I'd take my overall understanding of "the unfolding drama of redemption", conclude that this person was bonkers and take steps to stop him.
    Fair enough, that's what I'd do. But by doing so, you're implicitly stating that either the father is mistaken in thinking he's receiving instructions from the deity (in which case, you could be wrong yourself too), or the deity is providing instructions which you disagree with (in which case, you're placing your authority above that of the deity).

    Which is it?
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Are you pro-choice?
    I don't see what relevance this has to this discussion, but for the record, I believe that an implanted foetus holds broadly the same human rights a newborn does.


  • #129
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Hopefully you'll be convinced of your guilt before Judgment.
    I'm as guilty as Isaac was I suppose. But don't worry about me, I have a plan.
    I'll convert on a saturday evening when I'm nearly dead, all my sins will be expunged. Then I'll pull the plug on a Sunday morning. Knowing that God is a "somewhat unstable" character whose greatest pleasure is being worshipped by lots of people. He should be in a most generous mood at that time, and I'll be given a front seat in heaven, while you will probably end up in the back row, despite a lifetime of service :)


  • #130
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    robindch wrote: »
    In all fairness, it is your problem :) you're the one who's trying to make out that this view of things is reasonable. The above is a massive hole in it.

    I don't see where reasonableness comes into it.

    What a person does is ultimately their affair. If they reckon it's God's instruction and there's a God and it isn't his instruction then that one outcome. If they reckon it's God's instruction and there is a God and it is his instruction then that's another outcome. If they reckon it's God's instruction and there is no God then that's another outcome.

    I might have a view and you might have a view and we find him unreasonable according to our views. But that's not going to change a whole lot since he's entitled to a view too and can conclude his own actions reasonable.



    Fair enough, that's what I'd do. But by doing so, you're implicitly stating that either the father is mistaken in thinking he's receiving instructions from the deity (in which case, you could be wrong yourself too), or the deity is providing instructions which you disagree with (in which case, you're placing your authority above that of the deity).

    I'd be be supposing him mistaken (there's a God but God didn't instruct him so) and you'd be supposing him mistaken (there's no God to instruct him so). We could both be mistaken but we operate as we think best. You and me both. And the father.


    I don't see what relevance this has to this discussion, but for the record, I believe that an implanted foetus holds broadly the same human rights a newborn does.

    Define foetus (expressed in weeks from conception) ..for the record :)

    It's relevance has to do with us granting ourselves all sorts of authority. Some would grant themselves the right to kill the unborn. Other the right to chop hands off thieves. Still others to rape the planet in order to build and sustain empires and comfortable living standards.

    Folk grant themselves all sorts of authority to do all sorts of things to their fellow man. Whilst concerned on one level, I also see it as part of something that will be wrapped up finally and dealt with in satisfactory manner. So I'm not left utterly distraught by it.


  • #131
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    recedite wrote: »
    I'm as guilty as Isaac was I suppose. But don't worry about me, I have a plan.
    I'll convert on a saturday evening when I'm nearly dead, all my sins will be expunged. Then I'll pull the plug on a Sunday morning. Knowing that God is a "somewhat unstable" character whose greatest pleasure is being worshipped by lots of people. He should be in a most generous mood at that time, and I'll be given a front seat in heaven, while you will probably end up in the back row, despite a lifetime of service :)

    Great. Now the other bit

    But he gave Isaac it and you find that story morally repugnant. Continue..


  • Advertisement
  • #132
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Great. Now the other bit
    I don't understand what question you're asking.


  • #133
    CerebralCortex
    Registered Users Posts: 3,809 ✭✭✭CerebralCortex


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    That's not my problem. That's the fathers problem.

    But if it were about to happen today before my eyes I'd take my overall understanding of "the unfolding drama of redemption", conclude that this person was bonkers and take steps to stop him.








    Are you pro-choice?

    Do you love non sequiturs?


  • #134
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    recedite wrote: »
    I don't understand what question you're asking.

    You said you found the story of Isaac morally repugnant. The story of Issac sees God being the one to give Issac life for a time of God's choosing. What possible problem could you have with God in the story?


  • #135
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    CerebralCortex wrote: »
    Do you love non sequiturs?
    Tadpoles.


  • #136
    Knasher
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,370 ✭✭✭Knasher


    Honestly I think you have some of the most warped reasoning I have ever heard. I can't decide if you are just trying to wind us up or (and I hope it isn't the case) you actually believe what you are writing.
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    God grants life to persons for a duration of His choosing. And he takes it away again at a moment of His choosing. No ones death takes God by surprise. No ones death takes place in such a way as to frustrate God's ultimate plan wrt that person.

    Whether the person is a boy and the instrument of removal of life is the boys father or whether the person is an old man and the instrument of removal of life is God-cause death by old age - it makes no difference.

    If you are to find God killing "morally" repugnant then you need to be consistant and find it repugnant across the board. And need to explain where on earth you get the idea that you, Isaac .. or anyone else, has an unassailable right to retain that which God gave them for longer than he decides to given it.
    Then how can you view any murder as morally bad, if it cannot occur outside of gods plan and god is the ultimate good, then it must follow that serial killers and their ilk are simply implementing that plan according to gods will. It sounds a lot like you are arguing that nobody should have a right to life. What exactly does that say for a persons own free will, I don't see how you could incorporate that into your belief but my understanding is that it is a part of all christian dogmas.
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Define foetus (expressed in weeks from conception) ..for the record :)

    It's relevance has to do with us granting ourselves all sorts of authority. Some would grant themselves the right to kill the unborn.
    And yet you are against abortion? Is abortion a special kind of murder which frustrates gods will?
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    You said you found the story of Isaac morally repugnant. The story of Issac sees God being the one to give Issac life for a time of God's choosing. What possible problem could you have with God in the story?
    It sounds like you are saying that because you believe god created Issac, Issac ultimately has no rights beyond what his creator gives him and if he created him specifically with a plan in mind, Issac cannot have rights contravening that. To draw an analogy, if I was diagnosed with a heart disease that will kill me in 18 years, would it be correct to decide with my wife that we will have a child and in 18 years I will harvest his organs to keep myself alive? Just because I might have a plan without which another person wouldn't exist, doesn't give me the right to override the rights of that other person after they do exist.


  • #137
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    You said you found the story of Isaac morally repugnant. The story of Issac sees God being the one to give Issac life for a time of God's choosing. What possible problem could you have with God in the story?
    God is ordering Abraham to carry out a murder in the story.
    Knasher's reply above explains why that is morally wrong.

    So antiskeptic, if you heard a voice in your head, which you believed to be God, and the voice commanded you to strap explosives onto yourself and detonate in a crowded bus station, would you obey?


  • #138
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Knasher wrote: »
    Honestly I think you have some of the most warped reasoning I have ever heard. I can't decide if you are just trying to wind us up or (and I hope it isn't the case) you actually believe what you are writing.

    That's the rhetoric out of the way. Onto the argument..

    Then how can you view any murder as morally bad, if it cannot occur outside of gods plan and god is the ultimate good, then it must follow that serial killers and their ilk are simply implementing that plan according to gods will.

    God doesn't plan that the murder happens, people do. God's ultimate plan can take account of whether or not a murder takes place. The murder is wrong. But not influential to the point where it usurps Gods ultimate aim.

    It sounds a lot like you are arguing that nobody should have a right to life. What exactly does that say for a persons own free will, I don't see how you could incorporate that into your belief but my understanding is that it is a part of all christian dogmas.

    There is my right to life in so far as it concerns another person taking my life from me.

    And there is my right to life as it concerns God taking it from me.

    I have the former (says God) and not the latter (says God)

    I also have a God given freewill. That is to say: I'm free to operate within the constraints God permits me (which are pretty wide if you consider what Hitler was permitted to do) for as long as God permits it and for the purposes he has in giving me a freewill.


    And yet you are against abortion? Is abortion a special kind of murder which frustrates gods will?

    I'm against all murder. Murder is killing illegitimally (i.e. without God's say so whether that say so is by direct instruction or via inferred permission (eg: self defence)).

    Clearly, God cannot murder - no matter how many he kills.


    It sounds like you are saying that because you believe god created Issac, Issac ultimately has no rights beyond what his creator gives him and if he created him specifically with a plan in mind, Issac cannot have rights contravening that.

    Whilst it isn't because I believe in God that I hold that. Even if it was only a fictional story the in-story fact would remain the same. Which is as you say: the only rights Isaac has are those given him by his Creator. I mean, where else can he get them?

    To draw an analogy, if I was diagnosed with a heart disease that will kill me in 18 years, would it be correct to decide with my wife that we will have a child and in 18 years I will harvest his organs to keep myself alive? Just because I might have a plan without which another person wouldn't exist, doesn't give me the right to override the rights of that other person after they do exist.

    The only fly in this ointment is that you aren't a creator. You partake in the creation but you're not the creator.

    That said, since atheist morality is utterly self-decided upon, your choosing to (silently) infer your child as having rights only means you bow to a source of morality outside yourself. That is your perogative.

    But were you to decide to align your morality otherwise (which is also your perogative) then you just as easily decide your child has no rights and carry on harvesting without so much as a by your leave.

    The fact that others by assert their morality over your morality so as to prevent this harvest doesn't alter the core of the issue.


  • #139
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    recedite wrote: »
    God is ordering Abraham to carry out a murder in the story.

    A murder is an unrighteous killing. Abraham cannot be carrying out an unrighteous killing if God is the one condoning it.


    So antiskeptic, if you heard a voice in your head, which you believed to be God, and the voice commanded you to strap explosives onto yourself and detonate in a crowded bus station, would you obey?

    You mean out of the blue? Or, like in Abrahams case, after a long association with God and his voice such that I was certain it was God doing the instructing. If the latter then sure. Why not?


  • #140
    ed2hands
    Closed Accounts Posts: 873 ✭✭✭ed2hands


    Am sorry to say, my steak was a little overdone Michael.


  • #141
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    recedite wrote: »
    So antiskeptic, if you heard a voice in your head, which you believed to be God, and the voice commanded you to strap explosives onto yourself and detonate in a crowded bus station, would you obey?
    According to this post, I'd imagine the answer is a uncharacteristically clear "yes".


  • Advertisement
  • #142
    Knasher
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,370 ✭✭✭Knasher


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    God doesn't plan that the murder happens, people do. God's ultimate plan can take account of whether or not a murder takes place. The murder is wrong. But not influential to the point where it usurps Gods ultimate aim.
    Well you have already stated that god knows exactly when somebody is to be murdered, so it must be your view that the murder is a part of that plan even if it isn't an critical part of it.
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    I also have a God given freewill. That is to say: I'm free to operate within the constraints God permits me (which are pretty wide if you consider what Hitler was permitted to do) for as long as God permits it and for the purposes he has in giving me a freewill.
    So you only have freewill in so far as it corresponds to gods plan. And if gods plan requires the death of a certain person and wishes to use you for that purpose, that is perfectly acceptable? (And seeing as you brought up Hitler, was his actions corresponding to gods plan? After all the deaths of the people he killed must be a part of gods plan as you define it.)
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Clearly, God cannot murder - no matter how many he kills.
    Nope, I don't think that is clear at all.

    antiskeptic wrote: »
    You mean out of the blue? Or, like in Abrahams case, after a long association with God and his voice such that I was certain it was God doing the instructing. If the latter then sure.
    How will you judge the difference between you being insane or actually hearing the voice of god. You wouldn't be the first person to commit murder and claimed to be acting on gods instructions, are these people correct in that assertion?
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Why not?
    Almost certain you are just messing with us now. I mean, come on.


  • #143
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Knasher wrote: »
    Well you have already stated that god knows exactly when somebody is to be murdered, so it must be your view that the murder is a part of that plan even if it isn't an critical part of it.

    I used the term 'ultimate' plan in my last post to indicate the difference between his overall objective and the various ways that objective can be arrived at. Whether the murder takes place or not won't alter the final objective being reached.

    That God knows the murder will happen doesn't mean he want's it or plans it. Free agents murderering and God knowing it beforehand and permitting them to murder doesn't mean he plans the murder to happen.

    * that said, it might be that God has no objection to the death of the murdered person at this time, whilst he takes no joy in the murderer murdering.

    How will you judge the difference between you being insane or actually hearing the voice of god. You wouldn't be the first person to commit murder and claimed to be acting on gods instructions, are these people correct in that assertion?


    In much the same way I arrive at conclusions about any aspect of reality. I assess all the information at my disposal and assume that what makes sense to me is the best I can do in deciding on the nature of that reality.

    This, whether figuring there is a computer screen on front of me or whether God is talking to me.


    Almost certain you are just messing with us now. I mean, come on.

    Ask robindch does he think I'm messing with you now. (I am to an extent messing with you in that I realise plain-speak answers which lack all the nuance that would (or should) temper your incredulity - will tend to leave you incredulous. Answers such as "of course I'd bomb a crowd if I was certain it was God telling me to").

    I'm just waiting around for MN to get back to the supposed Euthyphro Dilemma and having a bit of (truthful) fun in the meantime :)


  • #144
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    robindch wrote: »
    According to this post, I'd imagine the answer is a uncharacteristically clear "yes".

    And this post too.


  • #145
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    antiskeptic wrote: »

    You mean out of the blue? Or, like in Abrahams case, after a long association with God and his voice such that I was certain it was God doing the instructing. If the latter then sure. Why not?
    So not if you had just recently become mentally ill, only if you had been mentally ill for some time. That is... comforting...?
    antiskeptic wrote: »

    That God knows the murder will happen doesn't mean he want's it or plans it. Free agents murderering and God knowing it beforehand and permitting them to murder doesn't mean he plans the murder to happen.
    Us puny humans have an interesting concept in homicide in relation to intent. In order to murder a person, in the legal sense, on must have intended to cause death or really serious harm. This caused some issues over the years with people saying they did not actually intend death or really serious harm, so no murder.

    In order to "fix" this what constituted intent changed. Now when a person carries out an act, or fails to carry out an act where there is a duty of care, and whilst he does not directly intend the consequences, but those consequences are a virtually certain result of his actions, then he is held to have intended the consequences. When that consequence is death, then the offence, assuming the other requirements are fulfilled, is murder.

    Your god is the biggest murderer in history.

    MrP


  • #146
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    sure. Why not?
    Well, there are thousands or even millions of religious zealots out there like you, so I won't feign indignation. At least you answered honestly.
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    I'm just waiting around for MN to get back to the supposed Euthyphro Dilemma and having a bit of (truthful) fun in the meantime :)
    OK, suppose you are engaged in some righteous killing on God's behalf. Maybe slitting the throat of a boy like Isaac, or trying to cut off someone's head with a sword. And the person whose time is up, according to God, is struggling and pleading with you to let him go.
    Do you think you would feel any empathy towards them, any pangs of remorse for what you were doing? Because if you did, that would indicate you felt a sense of morality independent of god and god's will.
    A hypothetical question obviously (or hopefully) so you can't give an exact answer, but you get a sense of the dilemma there. If morality exists outside of this god, then there is the possibility that the god can be in the wrong.


  • #147
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    antiskeptic wrote:
    That God knows the murder will happen doesn't mean he want's it or plans it. Free agents murderering and God knowing it beforehand and permitting them to murder doesn't mean he plans the murder to happen.
    MrPudding wrote: »
    Us puny humans have an interesting concept in homicide in relation to intent. In order to murder a person, in the legal sense, on must have intended to cause death or really serious harm. This caused some issues over the years with people saying they did not actually intend death or really serious harm, so no murder.

    In order to "fix" this what constituted intent changed. Now when a person carries out an act, or fails to carry out an act where there is a duty of care, and whilst he does not directly intend the consequences, but those consequences are a virtually certain result of his actions, then he is held to have intended the consequences. When that consequence is death, then the offence, assuming the other requirements are fulfilled, is murder.

    Your god is the biggest murderer in history.

    MrP


    You're arguing up the wrong tree. The above wasn't presented as an argument to justify God killing not being murder.

    In order to argue God killing murder you've have to figure out how his killing anyone is unrighteous. I can't see how anyone could argue that without figuring before which court God is to be judged.

    Seems to me that if God gave us life under the condition that he can take it back when he likes then I can't see how him taking it back when he likes could be considered problematic. It is his to give and take away. Surely?


  • #148
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    recedite wrote: »
    Well, there are thousands or even millions of religious zealots out there like you, so I won't feign indignation. At least you answered honestly.

    I do hope you'll see me as answering a hypothetical. It's not a situation that is ever going to happen

    If you understood the context of God laying waste to populations by instructing his agents to do the killing in the Old Testament - then you would know God isn't going to instruct me to kill anyone.


    OK, suppose you are engaged in some righteous killing on God's behalf. Maybe slitting the throat of a boy like Isaac, or trying to cut off someone's head with a sword. And the person whose time is up, according to God, is struggling and pleading with you to let him go.
    Do you think you would feel any empathy towards them, any pangs of remorse for what you were doing? Because if you did, that would indicate you felt a sense of morality independent of god and god's will.
    A hypothetical question obviously (or hopefully) so you can't give an exact answer, but you get a sense of the dilemma there. If morality exists outside of this god, then there is the possibility that the god can be in the wrong.


    I can give you a much better example than that. Take folk who die in what I believe to be a lost state. Take Col. Gaddaffi for instance.

    I can feel empathy and sorrow because of what it is he let himself become. He was made in God's image just like me and as such had such potential. And he made his choices and allowed himself to immerse himself deeper and deeper into the mire. To the point of being considered a mad dog. To the point of shedding bathfuls of blood in order to cling to what had come to ensnare him. In looking at him in his last moments I see the tiniest glimmer of humanity at the end of a tunnel of depravity (and speculate) it too late for that last trace of humanity to stretch out a hand in order that an ever merciful God could reach out and pull him up from the depths.

    But simultaneously; I have no problem with the same person reaping the full consequence of what they have sown. For Gaddaffi to close his eyes in death only to open them in the next moment and face whatever it is the lost face.

    -

    I can't really speculate what I would feel like were I instructed by God to be the trigger puller in a persons death. But the extent of my empathy would be limited to the above. I wouldn't/couldn't feel there is any wrong being done. For the simple reason that there isn't a wrong being done.

    It's important, life. But it's only a precursor to the main, eternal event. Bear that in mind when considering my perspective.


  • #149
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    You're arguing up the wrong tree. The above wasn't presented as an argument to justify God killing not being murder.

    In order to argue God killing murder you've have to figure out how his killing anyone is unrighteous. I can't see how anyone could argue that without figuring before which court God is to be judged.

    Seems to me that if God gave us life under the condition that he can take it back when he likes then I can't see how him taking it back when he likes could be considered problematic. It is his to give and take away. Surely?
    Quite clearly god or God will not appear beofre a court of law, not least because he is quite unlikely to exist. Therefore discussing his culpability for murder is more of an intellectual exercise. I would have thought you might have worked that out given I make no bones about my feeling towards the existence of gods.

    I have be admit it is most convenient to believe that your god can do no wrong and that, as the creator he can take life with impunity and that will always be right. I suppose when what you really really want your god to be, IE the awesomely good christian god, is totally incompatible with what you see around you in the world, then assertions "like life is his to take back as he sees fit" or "that he can never do wrong" will be essential lest you realise that your beliefs are pathetic and worthy only of contempt and ridicule.

    MrP


  • #150
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    MrPudding wrote: »
    Quite clearly god or God will not appear beofre a court of law, not least because he is quite unlikely to exist. Therefore discussing his culpability for murder is more of an intellectual exercise. I would have thought you might have worked that out given I make no bones about my feeling towards the existence of gods.

    Intellectual exercise is assumed in this forum.


    I have be admit it is most convenient to believe that your god can do no wrong and that, as the creator he can take life with impunity and that will always be right. I suppose when what you really really want your god to be, IE the awesomely good christian god, is totally incompatible with what you see around you in the world, then assertions "like life is his to take back as he sees fit" or "that he can never do wrong" will be essential lest you realise that your beliefs are pathetic and worthy only of contempt and ridicule.

    MrP

    There isn't enough of even a nod to an intellectual exercise to do anything with here..


  • Advertisement
  • #151
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    recedite wrote: »
    suppose you are engaged in some righteous killing on God's behalf. Maybe slitting the throat of a boy like Isaac, or trying to cut off someone's head with a sword. And the person whose time is up, according to God, is struggling and pleading with you to let him go.
    Do you think you would feel any empathy towards them, any pangs of remorse for what you were doing?
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    I can't really speculate what I would feel like were I instructed by God to be the trigger puller in a persons death. But the extent of my empathy would be limited to the above. I wouldn't/couldn't feel there is any wrong being done. For the simple reason that there isn't a wrong being done.

    I think you are giving a dishonest answer now, either because you have never faced extreme cruelty close up, or you refuse to face the implication that you could experience a morality independent of your god's will.
    Or else you are a psychopath.


Advertisement