Michael Nugent speaks for Atheism

antiskeptic · 22-10-2011 9:46pm

recedite wrote: »

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.

Kicking to rhetoric touch indicates you haven't an argument.

robindch · 23-10-2011 3:37pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

Kicking to rhetoric touch indicates you haven't an argument.

That's not kicking into rhetorical touch -- that's a logical hat-trick.

A reply better than "Boo, hiss!" would be the best approach.

antiskeptic · 23-10-2011 4:15pm

robindch wrote: »

That's not kicking into rhetorical touch -- that's a logical hat-trick.

A reply better than "Boo, hiss!" would be the best approach.

A question was asked and answered. The response supposed me dishonestly answering or ignorantly answering or evasingly answering.

That's not arguing the issue under discussion, namely: "what's the problem following an instruction to kill given by God?".

I see none. Honestly.

robindch · 23-10-2011 4:54pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

A question was asked and answered. The response supposed me dishonestly answering or ignorantly answering or evasingly answering.

Or of being a psychopath.

Ok, fair enough, I see where you're drawing the line.

From your perspective, you believe that your deity exists with the attributes and powers with which you animate it, and you also believe that you are able to tell with total accuracy, when you are receiving one of its instructions. And you also believe that this instruction must be carried out and that it overrules any ethical concerns you might have about the action.

That's a position which at least has the benefit of being fully consistent with religious belief, and it's one that I wish more religious believers would arrive at (briefly, before they recoil). The obvious downside, of course being, that if you ever carry your religious beliefs through to their logical conclusion, then your actions are indistinguishable from those of a psychopath. That's something you might wish to consider. It might also help you to understand why I, and many others, view religion as a trivial, nihilistic philosophical obscenity and why we wish to see it removed, as a matter of urgency, from our society. Particularly now that it's relatively easy to acquire control of technology which, like the WTC attacks, can cause wide-scale, indiscriminate slaughter.

You might also want to read the following book:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Under_the_Banner_of_Heaven

Which documents the interesting early history of mormonism and how the religion legitimized, at least to the psychopathic nutters who carried it out, the heart-breaking, horrific knife-murder of a young mother and her baby by religious believers with views of themselves which appear, so far as total self-legitimization goes, to be identical to your views of yourself.

Again, the wisdom of this is something that you might wish to consider.

antiskeptic · 23-10-2011 5:17pm

robindch wrote: »

From your perspective, you believe that your deity exists with the attributes and powers with which you animate it, and you also believe that you are able to tell with total accuracy, when you are receiving one of its instructions. And you also believe that this instruction must be carried out and that it overrules any ethical concerns you might have about the action.

I'm assuming accuracy enough that I feel comfortable acting.

I don't believe it's instruction must be carried out - I don't carry out his instructions all the time.

There is no ethical concerns to be overruled since God is the standard for what I consider ethical.

That's a position which at least has the benefit of being fully consistent with religious belief, and it's one that I wish more religious believers would arrive at (briefly, before they recoil). The obvious downside, of course being, that if you ever carry your religious beliefs through to their logical conclusion, then your actions are indistinguishable from those of a psychopath.

Indistinguishable to you perhaps. But your view concerns me less that does God's view or my view.

That's something you might wish to consider. It might also help you to understand why I, and many others, view religion as a trivial, nihilistic philosophical obscenity and why we wish to see it removed, as a matter of urgency, from our society. Particularly now that it's relatively easy to acquire control of technology which, like the WTC attacks, can cause wide-scale, indiscriminate slaughter.

I said earlier that I was dealing with a hypothetical since in order for God to issue me with an instruction to kill he would have to contradict what he has already said in his word. So you don't have to worry to much about me personally.

It's no surprise you view my stance as you do since you don't believe in the existance of the God who provides sound foundation for that stance. If you did, for the sake of argument, you would have an uphill struggle maintaining your outlook.

You might also want to read the following book:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Under_the_Banner_of_Heaven

Which documents the interesting early history of mormonism and how the religion legitimized, at least to the psychopathic nutters who carried it out, the heart-breaking, horrific knife-murder of a young mother and her baby by religious believers with views of themselves which appear, so far as total self-legitimization goes, to be identical to your views of yourself.

Again, the wisdom of this is something that you might wish to consider.

If you assumed the existance of God for the sake of argument then you would see there is a difference between a legitimate actions directed by God and an illegitimate actions that look the same as the ones directed by God but which aren't.

So go assume - in which case you can also assume for the sake of argument the Mormon god doesn't exist and their actions aren't actually directed by God.

You should then realise that conflating two seemingly (but not actually) identical viewpoints means your argument loses purchase.

robindch · 23-10-2011 5:53pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm assuming accuracy enough that I feel comfortable acting.

That's the problem.

antiskeptic wrote: »

There is no ethical concerns to be overruled since God is the standard for what I consider ethical.

I'm referring to overruling the normal ethical concerns that all humans have independent of any particular deity. Things like honesty, decency, not killing babies and so on. Or at least, the ethical standards that we all have unless a religion happens to usurp them and tell people that they can do whatever they like, and believe themselves perfect for it.

antiskeptic wrote: »

It's no surprise you view my stance as you do since you don't believe in the existance of the God who provides sound foundation for that stance. If you did, for the sake of argument, you would have an uphill struggle maintaining your outlook.

I would have exactly the same concerns if I had religious beliefs, or at least, common religious beliefs. Unfortunately, I'm also aware that christians believe that the deity (a) does not hand out unambiguous legalistic instructions for action -- witness the many rules for conduct that are ignored or treated as "metaphor" in the bible -- and (b) instead chooses to communicate with his dears via burning bushes, voices in the head, scorch marks in toast, tree-stumps outside Limerick, kids in Medjugorje and so on, all the while being invisible.

If the deity wishes to be taken seriously, then it can start communicating seriously, rather than by piggybacking on known psychological and cognitive flaws in the human brain.

antiskeptic · 23-10-2011 6:15pm

robindch wrote: »

That's the problem.

Not an insurmountable one for me. And since I'm the one doing the acting..

I'm referring to overruling the normal ethical concerns that all humans have independent of any particular deity. Things like honesty, decency, not killing babies and so on. Or at least, the ethical standards that we all have unless a religion happens to usurp them and tell people that they can do whatever they like, and believe themselves perfect for it.

You're using a royal 'we' here that doesn't actually exist. People share some ethics and don't share others. My view would see the extensive commonality of ethics as stemming from God - with deviation due either to sin or ignorance.

I would have exactly the same concerns if I had religious beliefs, or at least, common religious beliefs. Unfortunately, I'm also aware that christians believe that the deity (a) does not hand out unambiguous legalistic instructions for action -- witness the many rules for conduct that are ignored or treated as "metaphor" in the bible --

With the responsiblity for ones interpretation laying with the individual. Happily.

and (b) instead chooses to communicate with his dears via burning bushes, voices in the head, scorch marks in toast, tree-stumps outside Limerick, kids in Medjugorje and so on, all the while being invisible.

Empirically invisible you mean?

If the deity wishes to be taken seriously, then it can start communicating seriously, rather than by piggybacking on known psychological and cognitive flaws in the human brain.

What else could a blind man be expected to say if desiring earnestly to deny his blindness?

B_Fanatic · 23-10-2011 6:43pm

@Antiskeptic:

Are you assuming the role of a theist for the sake of argument? If so I see the point you're making exactly.

If you're not and you actually are a theist stating that under conditions given by your deity you'd happily (maybe not happily, but willingly) carry out 'unethical' acts on his behalf I then, as Robindch did, commend you on your consistency. (Forgive me if I misinterpreted how you actually felt about that Robindch) I have enough faith (for lack of a better word) in my mental stability to feel that I was in fact contacted by some higher being provided it was unambiguous and direct. The higher being not necessarily being a god.

Not entirely sure what I'm saying here besides agreeing.

antiskeptic · 23-10-2011 6:56pm

B_Fanatic wrote: »

If you're not and you actually are a theist stating that under conditions given by your deity you'd happily (maybe not happily, but willingly) carry out 'unethical' acts on his behalf I then, as Robindch did, commend you on your consistency.

Robin seems to be bending over backwards to find inconsistancy in my position. But perhaps I've misunderstood him

I'm a theist btw. A Christian.

I have enough faith (for lack of a better word) in my mental stability to feel that I was in fact contacted by some higher being provided it was unambiguous and direct. The higher being not necessarily being a god.

It must be possible to be as certain as one needs to be, given that we feel we can be certain of other things.

This tends to produce a rush of "Yes, but in those other things we have empirical evidence" statements. As if the value I assign empirical evidence > certainty is assigned by someone other than me having faith in my mental stability.

Not entirely sure what I'm saying here besides agreeing.

Appreciated. Are you a theist though..

MrPudding · 23-10-2011 7:09pm

So here is a question I am struggling with.

So god is all powerful. He has a plan and we cannot frustrate that plan. Everything happens because he want it to and we are powerless to stop it.

There are many people who god apparently talks to. For whatever reason some of these people end up in mental institutions. So, how come, if god is so powerful, we can stop him from talking to people by giving these people anti-psychotic drugs?

MrP

robindch · 23-10-2011 7:32pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

Robin seems to be bending over backwards to find inconsistancy in my position. But perhaps I've misunderstood him

Yes, you have misunderstood me.

I've already said two or three times that your position is consistent. I would prefer, though a position that was wise or had some basic understanding of how easy it is for the brain to make mistakes.

I also said that your position is (effectively) psychopathic, since you are awarding yourself the right to do whatever you want to do to whomever you wish. And not only do you appear to see no problem with that, you even seem to think that such psychopathic behaviour is your solemn duty.

That view is insane.

robindch · 23-10-2011 7:37pm

MrPudding wrote: »

how come, if god is so powerful, we can stop him from talking to people by giving these people anti-psychotic drugs?

Drug-based psychiatric treatments are evil, and presumably the work of Satan.

Haven't you been paying attention to Tom Cruise?

MrPudding · 23-10-2011 8:16pm

robindch wrote: »

Drug-based psychiatric treatments are evil, and presumably the work of Satan.

Haven't you been paying attention to Tom Cruise?

But but but, I thought god was more powerful than satan...

MrP

Delirium · 23-10-2011 8:21pm

MrPudding wrote: »

But but but, I thought god was more powerful than satan...

MrP

That may be the case, but god clearly ain't no match for haldol

MrPudding · 23-10-2011 10:02pm

koth wrote: »

That may be the case, but god clearly ain't no match for haldol

I for one welcome our new haldol overlords.

MrP

antiskeptic · 24-10-2011 12:08am

robindch wrote: »

Yes, you have misunderstood me.

I've already said two or three times that your position is consistent. I would prefer, though a position that was wise or had some basic understanding of how easy it is for the brain to make mistakes.

Don't you mean how easy it is for the brain to realise it is capable of making mistakes. Without the first assessment being reliable what value the conclusion that I can make mistakes?

I also said that your position is (effectively) psychopathic, since you are awarding yourself the right to do whatever you want to do to whomever you wish. And not only do you appear to see no problem with that, you even seem to think that such psychopathic behaviour is your solemn duty.

That view is insane.

In the case it is God doing the talking I'm not assigning myself any right. He is (as is his right).

All rests on whether it's God doing the talking or not. If not then I would be psychopathic. If so, then I'm not in the least bit psychopatic.

antiskeptic · 24-10-2011 12:13am

MrPudding wrote: »

So here is a question I am struggling with.

So god is all powerful. He has a plan and we cannot frustrate that plan. Everything happens because he want it to and we are powerless to stop it.

He has a plan and that plan will not be frustrated.

Not everything happens according to his will (he hates evildoing for example). But he can leverage evil doing in his accomplishing his plan. For example, a persons sin is used to apply pressure on them to bring them to their knees and be saved. That's not to say they will be but it is an example od where something that is against his will (evil doing) gets used to bring about his will (that all would be possibly saved)

There are many people who god apparently talks to. For whatever reason some of these people end up in mental institutions.

Source? That is is God talking to them I mean?

B_Fanatic · 24-10-2011 12:36am

antiskeptic wrote: »

Appreciated. Are you a theist though..

No, I'm athiest but I really don't care what anyone believes in... Not because I think religous beliefs aren't harmful, I do think they have a lot of potential to hurt a lot of people I just don't really care that much. I can make myself incredibly apathetic when it's an easier alternative to being empathetic. I have a very similar outlook to your's only as an analogy, I would be the god.

In this regard I would agree with Robindch, as what I said above is quite psychopathic and I feel it fits as a very good analogy when substituting a disregard for ethics and morality in pursuit of one's happiness/wants with the unquestionable orders of a god. Basically I would agree that acting immorally on behalf of a god who has contacted you alone is psychopathic behaviour... Objectively.

However, if you've lived a perfectly mentally stable life for about 20/30 years, no voices, no hallucinations, then suddenly, without the intervention of psychoactive substances, you are visited by a god who ambiguously gives you orders that appear to contradict modern moral laws, sure, go for it. Provided there is absolutely no rational explanation for the god's sudden appearance I would probably decide to go ahead and follow his orders. No matter how many dead babies were on that list... Although I would be grateful if he was to tell me an objective for the slaying of so many dead babies.... Hmmmm. Actually, no, I wouldn't do it unless I could gain from it or the world could gain from it (I have some degree of empathy, remember! And if the entire world would gain from me killing a few dozen babies, sure, why not.)

Sorry if that makes no sense, I tried to write it as concisely as possible. And yes if you are thinking, "This can't be right, it is completely insane..." Yes it is right. But if it still appears that I'm talking incoherent nonsense I won't be arsed making it any clearer. Probably best that way anyway.

Note: I probably couldn't do a lot of those things, but I rationally think they'd be the correct things to do. I'm pretty certain I underestimate my empathy and ego a lot. The fact that I bothered writing this at all shows the existence of some sort of ego, and the ego doesn't like people looking at it in disgust and yelling, "Baby murdering bastard!"

antiskeptic · 24-10-2011 12:00pm

B_Fanatic wrote: »

In this regard I would agree with Robindch, as what I said above is quite psychopathic and I feel it fits as a very good analogy when substituting a disregard for ethics and morality in pursuit of one's happiness/wants with the unquestionable orders of a god. Basically I would agree that acting immorally on behalf of a god who has contacted you alone is psychopathic behaviour... Objectively.

You mean acting immorally according to your standard?

However, if you've lived a perfectly mentally stable life for about 20/30 years, no voices, no hallucinations, then suddenly, without the intervention of psychoactive substances, you are visited by a god who ambiguously gives you orders that appear to contradict modern moral laws, sure, go for it.

Modern moral laws? As in 'modern' is more moral? Do you have a TV at all?

As for the circumstances you suggest, I'd need a little bit more convincing it was God than him just speaking out of the blue one day. I mean, just because I've 30 years good mental stability history doesn't mean mental instability can't commence in year 31.

Provided there is absolutely no rational explanation for the god's sudden appearance I would probably decide to go ahead and follow his orders. No matter how many dead babies were on that list... Although I would be grateful if he was to tell me an objective for the slaying of so many dead babies.... Hmmmm. Actually, no, I wouldn't do it unless I could gain from it or the world could gain from it (I have some degree of empathy, remember! And if the entire world would gain from me killing a few dozen babies, sure, why not.)

I'd be doing it because it was the morally right thing to do. We tend to do the morally right thing in order to come into equilibrium with a sense of 'oughtness' to which we are exposed.

Note: I probably couldn't do a lot of those things, but I rationally think they'd be the correct things to do. I'm pretty certain I underestimate my empathy and ego a lot. The fact that I bothered writing this at all shows the existence of some sort of ego, and the ego doesn't like people looking at it in disgust and yelling, "Baby murdering bastard!"

I'd be more concerned with what God thought of me than what folk who are at enmity with God think of me. It is only those who are (currently) at enmity with God who would frown upon God's actions.

UDP · 24-10-2011 12:16pm

Its true what they say that there will always be good and bad people whether they are religious people or not. The problem is that religion can make otherwise good people do bad things.

Knasher · 24-10-2011 12:57pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

As for the circumstances you suggest, I'd need a little bit more convincing it was God than him just speaking out of the blue one day. I mean, just because I've 30 years good mental stability history doesn't mean mental instability can't commence in year 31.

The problem I have with your view is that it, seems to me, to leave you more open to be convinced by voices in your head if you ever suffer from mental stability. Whereas I might immediately assume a problem and get help (assuming I still had the capacity to do so), somebody with your view might be more inclined to give it credence. It is pretty self evident that people have a tendency to jump to conclusions that fit their viewpoint, and hearing a voice that nobody else can hear that tells you to do things you might otherwise find objectionable is something that fits quite well with the christian world view.

antiskeptic · 24-10-2011 1:13pm

Knasher wrote: »

The problem I have with your view is that it, seems to me, to leave you more open to be convinced by voices in your head if you ever suffer from mental stability.

I don't see how I could a anymore confuse a mental instability voice in my head with God's voice than I could a real computer screen on front of me from an imaginary one.

Or if I could the one, then as easily the other.

Since I don't worry about the prospect that the computer screen on front of me might not be real, I can't see myself spending much time worrying about an imaginary Gods voice.

UDP · 24-10-2011 1:25pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

I don't see how I could a anymore confuse a mental instability voice in my head with God's voice than I could a real computer screen on front of me from an imaginary one.

Or if I could the one, then as easily the other.

Since I don't worry about the prospect that the computer screen on front of me might not be real, I can't see myself spending much time worrying about an imaginary Gods voice.

Then how do you know what your god wants you to do/behave?

Knasher · 24-10-2011 1:29pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

I don't see how I could a anymore confuse a mental instability voice in my head with God's voice

Well there have been a number of murders over the years who claim to be acting on gods instructions (afaik, I can't look up any examples right now but I'm happy to research it later if you want), though admittedly we only have their word on it and they could be just claiming it to either substantiate a later insanity claim or garner some small sympathy.

That being said, the propensity of people to interpret things as divinely inspired (such as seeing burn marks on toast as gods face (unless your view on that differs)), makes the view that somebody might misinterpret a disembodied voice as god at least plausible.

antiskeptic wrote: »

than I could a real computer screen on front of me from an imaginary one.

I'm not sure what you are saying here.

antiskeptic · 24-10-2011 1:36pm

UDP wrote: »

Then how do you know what your god wants you to do/behave?

I use the same technique used in deciding whether my computer screen is real or not. That which seems reasonable and fitting to me is considered real.

antiskeptic · 24-10-2011 1:51pm

Knasher wrote: »

I'm not sure what you are saying here.

Since I can no more be certain that the computer screen on front of me is real than I can be sure God's voice is really God, I go with what seems to be self-evident in both cases.

I can understand your perspective - but it is logically flawed. The fact of 10,000 mutually exclusive religions doesn't alter the truth of the one - if one is true. Nor does 10,000 false voices alter the truth of the true voice - if there is a true voice.

nozzferrahhtoo · 24-10-2011 3:53pm

UDP wrote: »

Then how do you know what your god wants you to do/behave?

antiskeptic wrote: »

That which seems reasonable and fitting to me is considered real.

So you use your knowledge, common sense, intuition, education and wisdom to decide what is right, wrong, ethical or moral.... then using this you decide if the words of god are really god speaking. If the gods position appears unreasonable to you, it must not be god.

Welcome to our world. That is what we do too. Use our knowledge, common sense, intuitions, education and wisdom to decide what is right, wrong, ethical or moral. We just stop before the inventing an imaginary god or an objective standard and pretending it agrees with everything we just decided.

antiskeptic · 24-10-2011 4:08pm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

So you use your knowledge, common sense, intuition, education and wisdom to decide what is right, wrong, ethical or moral.... then using this you decide if the words of god are really god speaking. If the gods position appears unreasonable to you, it must not be god.

Welcome to our world. That is what we do too. Use our knowledge, common sense, intuitions, education and wisdom to decide what is right, wrong, ethical or moral. We just stop before the inventing an imaginary god or an objective standard and pretending it agrees with everything we just decided.

:rolleyes:

Where the heck is Michael Nugent...

nozzferrahhtoo · 24-10-2011 4:10pm

He is a busy man from what I have seen. I am amazed he invests as much time posting here as he does.

B_Fanatic · 24-10-2011 5:50pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

You mean acting immorally according to your standard?

No, to the social standard accepted by the society you're in or consider yourself a part of.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Modern moral laws? As in 'modern' is more moral? Do you have a TV at all?

Never said modern is more moral, it was a benign adjective that in no way takes away from the point... If there was one, I can't even remember. Replace it with current if you want. What is considered morally acceptable changes over time and with society.

antiskeptic wrote: »

As for the circumstances you suggest, I'd need a little bit more convincing it was God than him just speaking out of the blue one day. I mean, just because I've 30 years good mental stability history doesn't mean mental instability can't commence in year 31.

I agree. I didn't mean he talks to you out of the blue. I meant he provides you with whatever you need to be convinced of his existence. Predicting an objective future, maybe? I don't know, whatever you would feel is necessary. I stated below that that there would be no rational alternative. The only reasonable explanation being that god has just given you clear orders of what to do.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'd be doing it because it was the morally right thing to do. We tend to do the morally right thing in order to come into equilibrium with a sense of 'oughtness' to which we are exposed.

Yes. As I said, without an objective though it would be hard to justify the hardship you'd be putting yourself through in slaughtering dozens of young 'uns.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'd be more concerned with what God thought of me than what folk who are at enmity with God think of me. It is only those who are (currently) at enmity with God who would frown upon God's actions.

Of course you would, you believe in God!

Without a god your peers tend to take the centre stage... In saying that I'm not stating that all athiests are egotistical b*****ds either though.

Hope that clears everything up!

B_Fanatic · 24-10-2011 6:07pm

Knasher wrote: »

The problem I have with your view is that it, seems to me, to leave you more open to be convinced by voices in your head if you ever suffer from mental stability.

Don't worry. I think it's quite improbable that he will hallucinate to degree that the hallucination can convince him of objective existence. AntiSkeptic clearly states it would take some objective convincing. Or maybe even some ridiculous form of subjective alteration like appearing before you and then agreeing to forever change what you see as red to blue and blue to red. That would convince me. I don't believe someone could hallucinate (god) to that degree and then perform such a ridiculous feat as permanently swapping colours. That was just one example of something inexplainable (that includes the explanation, 'maybe I have a mental illness').

Edit: Basically it's going to take more than jesus on a burnt slice of toast to convince him to murder people.

recedite · 24-10-2011 10:09pm

B_Fanatic wrote: »

If you actually are a theist stating that under conditions given by your deity you'd happily (maybe not happily, but willingly) carry out 'unethical' acts on his behalf I then, as Robindch did, commend you on your consistency. (Forgive me if I misinterpreted how you actually felt about that Robindch) I have enough faith (for lack of a better word) in my mental stability to feel that I was in fact contacted by some higher being provided it was unambiguous and direct. The higher being not necessarily being a god.

antiskeptic wrote: »

All rests on whether it's God doing the talking or not. If not then I would be psychopathic. If so, then I'm not in the least bit psychopatic.

What if it was the Devil (impersonating God) or just some alien having a laugh?

antiskeptic wrote: »

I use the same technique used in deciding whether my computer screen is real or not. That which seems reasonable and fitting to me is considered real.

:pac::pac: Sounds remarkably like my technique, but oddly your conclusion is completely different! For example I find if I punch the computer monitor, my hand hurts, but if I try to punch God...... or if I ask the person next to me if they can see my monitor, then yes they can see it, but.....

Also the point still stands; if you have any ethical difficulty at all in carrying out the slaughter, it proves your morality is coming from somewhere else other than the god/devil/alien/psychopathic alter-ego in your head.

recedite · 24-10-2011 10:17pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

Where the heck is Michael Nugent...

We are His flying monkey minions. You have to successfully argue against us before we take you to see our Great Leader.

antiskeptic · 25-10-2011 12:01am

recedite wrote: »

What if it was the Devil (impersonating God) or just some alien having a laugh?

Or some mad scientist with my brain in a jar jamming probes in making me think that if I..

I punch the computer monitor, my hand hurts

If you can explain why that possibility should cause me (or you) to lose sleep then by all means go for it.

or if I ask the person next to me if they can see my monitor, then yes they can see it,

So what? If your 'proof' that the screen exists depends on the assumption that the person exists then you might as well just assume the screen exists and be done with it.

Also the point still stands; if you have any ethical difficulty at all in carrying out the slaughter, it proves your morality is coming from somewhere else other than the god/devil/alien/psychopathic alter-ego in your head.

I didn't recall my mentioning my having any ethical difficulty at all. My regret for the person would probably be a minute shadow of the regret God has in their choice - what with his earnestly desiring that none should perish but that all would come instead (as it's put technically) to repentence.

But there is no sense that there is anything unethical about God killing them whether directly or though my playing bullet to God's trigger finger.

antiskeptic · 25-10-2011 12:07am

recedite wrote: »

We are His flying monkey minions. You have to successfully argue against us before we take you to see our Great Leader.

I've just googled him - I didn't realise he had form outside (what I thought was mere) forelock tugging in the direction of His Esteemed Eminence Richard Dawkins (pbuh).

Oh well..

Michael Nugent · 25-10-2011 5:10am

The Euthyphro dilemma is not about whether something is morally good. It is about why something is morally good. It is about defining the fundamental characteristic of moral goodness.

The argument that something is good because it pleases a god does not address this. It merely creates the following dilemma:

Option one: Does the god have a reason for being pleased by goodness? If so, that reason is closer to the fundamental characteristic of goodness, and the god is merely observing that something is good rather than causing it to be good.

Option two: Does the god have no reason for being pleased by goodness? If so, then goodness is arbitrary from the perspective of the supposed god, and the answer tells us nothing about the fundamental characteristic of goodness.

All of this can be distilled to the question: Does your god have a reason, or have no reason, for being pleased by goodness?

Antiskeptic:

Your original argument was that good is a label for “that which aligns with god’s will” and that saying something is good is saying “this is as god wants it to be.” But this does not address why your god wants things to be like this, and so it does not address the dilemma.

You added that his will stems from his character and his character is immutable. Again, this does not address the dilemma, though it points in the direction of your god not having a reason (or at least not having a reason that is under his control) for wanting anything to be like anything.

You then said that “as it happens he detests selfishness” but that if he had happened to have had different immutable characteristics, and they had caused him to adore selfishness, then selfishness would be good. But all that this does is push the dilemma onto his immutable characteristics rather than onto his will.

So the question can be reframed as: Is there any reason, or no reason, that your god happens to have the immutable characteristics that your god happens to have? Depending on your answer to that, we can tease out its implications for the Euthyphro dilemma.

(Again, with the caveat from my last post on this that the supposed immutability of his will could be challenged based on reading the bible, but that we are parking that - and indeed his supposed existence! - for the purpose of this discussion.)

Michael Nugent · 25-10-2011 5:14am

The fourth article in the series is published today.

Faith ceases to be a virtue when it has little connection with facts of reality

Feedback welcome.

Michael Nugent · 25-10-2011 5:30am

antiskeptic wrote: »

I don't see how I could a anymore confuse a mental instability voice in my head with God's voice than I could a real computer screen on front of me from an imaginary one.

Or if I could the one, then as easily the other.

Since I don't worry about the prospect that the computer screen on front of me might not be real, I can't see myself spending much time worrying about an imaginary Gods voice.

One preliminary test you might consider is whether or not the vast majority of sane people agree with your assessment. If hardly anyone who is sane agrees that a god is talking to you and many sane people think you are displaying signs of mental instability, and if almost everyone who is sane agrees that there is a real computer screen in front of you and almost nobody who is sane thinks it is an imaginary screen, that's a useful pointer in what is probably the right direction. Not conclusive to the point of theoretical certainty (as nothing is) but useful enough for you to reconsider obeying the voices in your head and instead consider asking a specialist to test your mental stability.

Edit: that's not a flippant suggestion, by the way, as you have also written about the possibility of you believing that your god was telling you to kill a person:

antiskeptic wrote:

I didn't recall my mentioning my having any ethical difficulty at all. My regret for the person would probably be a minute shadow of the regret God has in their choice - what with his earnestly desiring that none should perish but that all would come instead (as it's put technically) to repentance. But there is no sense that there is anything unethical about God killing them whether directly or though my playing bullet to God's trigger finger.

antiskeptic · 25-10-2011 10:28am

Michael Nugent wrote: »

One preliminary test you might consider is whether or not the vast majority of sane people agree with your assessment.

Unfortunately this approach suffers from a number of problems.

The first concerns circles. I can hardly support my suspicion that this computer screen is real by assuming the reality of people I (about whom I have the same suspicion).

The second concerns bootstraps. Assuming the people exist, all that a number of people observing things in the same way says, in an absolute sense, is that a number of people observe something in the same way. It says nothing about whether their group assessment is a more accurate reflection of the reality than the single, divergent observation*

This second notion happens to coincide with the Christian claim that men are born 'spiritually blind' (you could insert colour blind in there instead by way of limited analogy). If the "vast majority of sane people" are in fact suffering from spiritual (or color) blindness then it can be expected their collective view on the existence of God (or a red rose) need not accurately reflect reality.

*a frequent response at this point is ask to I believe in paracetamol and other such products of science - which depend on the very common observance that I'm questioning here. In response I would say that I'm not throwing out the bathwater - I'm just pointing out that there could very well be a baby in it. That baby being spiritual blindness. Just as Christianity argues.

And so..

Not conclusive to the point of theoretical certainty (as nothing is) but useful enough for you to reconsider obeying the voices in your head and instead consider asking a specialist to test your mental stability.

The degree of conclusivity is something which is determined by each individual individually. If God is as real to me as a computer screen or other people then I can't see any particular reason how the one can be used to usurp the other

Although it must be said that God appears to comment on people with a lot more sense and insight than do people on God. If it became either or in terms of what's real, I know which I'd plump for.

Edit: that's not a flippant suggestion, by the way, as you have also written about the possibility of you believing that your god was telling you to kill a person:

The fact you'd (likely) agree to the possibility of God's existence doesn't mean I'd take your stating that a possibility to be something you seriously entertain or consider managing your life around.

recedite · 25-10-2011 10:42am

antiskeptic wrote: »

I've just googled him ...

Just did the same.... interesting to see in the wiki entry; "In 2000, Nugent helped to stop the Irish government appointing a disgraced former judge, Hugh O’Flaherty, to the European Investment Bank. The Bank accepted Nugent’s argument that they had a statutory duty to consider other candidates, and he forwarded the CV of Irish Senator and business editor Shane Ross. After public pressure, O'Flaherty withdrew his candidacy"
That is, interesting in the context of his current article which compares unjustified faith in the "secular gods" eg banks to which I will add governments and courts.
And with the two referendums coming up this week concerning the interference of government in the court system, it's worth reading again this brief summary of the Sheedy Affair.
So, to Michael Nugent and anyone else of personal integrity who plays their part to improve this world we live in; I say "fair play to ya man."

ShooterSF · 25-10-2011 12:14pm

So if we can't frustrate god's plan what's the story with Eve eating the apple. He seemed pretty P.O'd then?

nozzferrahhtoo · 25-10-2011 12:31pm

Sorry someone explain this to me? Are we saying god is real because computer screens appear to be real? I am losing the thread here I think but if that is essentially where we are going then the attempts to offer arguments for god's existence have reached a comical new low. Exaggerating uncertainties in order to put all uncertainties on a par with the uncertainty of entirely unsubstantiated claims (such as the existence of a god) in order to make the god one seem just as plausible as any other... is a weak approach at best and at worst a canard.

Also I do not think the color blindness / spiritual blindness comparison is a good one on any level. The fact is that you can still prove the existence of a color to those who are unable to see it. There are experiments, measurements and observations which will all attest to the colors existence regardless of how unable the person is to see it not to mention our capability to render light of one wavelength not visible to us into another.

This is not so of the “spiritual blindness” claim. With that claim, to continue the analogy, not only can the “mark” not “see” the color (god)… but the person claiming the color’s (god) existence is also entirely unable to offer a shred of argument, data, evidence or reasons to lend even a modicum of credence to the claim it is there.

So no, I think simply writing people off as “spiritually blind” in some comparison to color blindness is more of a cop out than an actual argument. It is one of the MANY tactics I have seen in my time where the person with no evidence for a claim attempts to make it appear that the problem does not lie with the claimant, but with some deficiency on the part of the “mark”.

antiskeptic · 26-10-2011 12:42am

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Your original argument was that good is a label for “that which aligns with god’s will” and that saying something is good is saying “this is as god wants it to be.” But this does not address why your god wants things to be like this, and so it does not address the dilemma.

You added that his will stems from his character and his character is immutable. Again, this does not address the dilemma, though it points in the direction of your god not having a reason (or at least not having a reason that is under his control) for wanting anything to be like anything.

If we consider the second statement first.

Yes, God's character is said to be 'good' - where 'good' is merely an umbrella term which encompasses what we might call the flavour of that character (whether this involves hating selfishness or loving it, being patient or im, being merciful or not, being brave or cowardly). There is no reason required for his being that way (and so, no dilemma in his being that way). He just is as he eternally is and 'good' is the word used to describe how he is he happens to be.

Considering the first statement second: God having a reason "for wanting anything (i.e. others who have been made in his image) to be like anything (i.e. like him)". What reason could God have for wanting that we would choose to express outwards, the image of God in which we have been made? Well, if our choosing to align ourselves with God is the only way this God who loves us is able to share our company, then you have a reason why God would want us to be good (i.e. be like him). It is reasonable for a lover to want to share the company of the beloved.

You then said that “as it happens he detests selfishness” but that if he had happened to have had different immutable characteristics, and they had caused him to adore selfishness, then selfishness would be good.

Indeed.

If the ought-to-do-good moral sense that he (is argued to have) installed in us was calibrated against those kind of characteristics, then all the atheists here would be big fans of the Old Testament God caricature (seen regularily both here and at RD.net).

Further, if that upsidedown calibrated moral sense was installed for the same reasons the currently calibrated sense was installed (i.e. a means of ascertaining our hearts desire w.r.t. what God stands for/against with a view to establishing an eternal realm) then those who love selfishnes would go to be with God for eternity. And those who hated it would go to Hell.

But all that this does is push the dilemma onto his immutable characteristics rather than onto his will.

I don't see what the dilemma is given the terms under which "good" is being considered (God's flavour being as it is / a sifting mechanism which searches out our hearts desire).

So the question can be reframed as: Is there any reason, or no reason, that your god happens to have the immutable characteristics that your god happens to have?

There is no reason for God having the characteristics he has (you might say that his being love is the reason for his self-sacrifice (in Christ) but it would appear that the truest of loves is, per definition, self-sacrifical. So there isn't actually a reason in a separate sense)

There is a reason for God desiring others reflect those characteristics.

It's worth noting that the sense of moral "I ought to" we have been equipped with would appear to be a temporary thing - a device for ascertaining our position w.r.t. God.

There wouldn't be any need for a moral "I ought to" in heaven since those who occupy that place have availed of God's promise to reconfigure them fully into the image of God. That means effectively that they would have no sinful tendency anymore in order that a moral "I ought" would have anything much to do.

(Again, with the caveat from my last post on this that the supposed immutability of his will could be challenged based on reading the bible, but that we are parking that - and indeed his supposed existence! - for the purpose of this discussion.)

Both 'let's' are necessary if we are to hope to retain focus. I'm not assuming any higher ground in your permitting them. Thanks.

I can appreciate why someone reading the Bible could arrive at a conclusion other than God is good (in the sense we generally understand it to mean back in non-theology land). The problem actually stems from his being white-hot good. When you hate selfishness with a furious, God-scale hatred then the selfish tend to get burned.

Us? We just put the selfish on our ignore list (understandable, since we're selfish too)

antiskeptic · 26-10-2011 12:51am

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Sorry someone explain this to me? Are we saying god is real because computer screens appear to be real?

No. We're saying that the ultimate judge of whether your computer screen is real or not is you and you alone. You can't invoke the opinion of others (who may or may not exist) to add support to your suspicion that your computer screen exists. Well you can, but since it's you being the judge on that matter too, you haven't shifted the burden from you being the ultimate judge.

The computer screen takes on existance only if you decide it does. Ditto God.

This, of course, doesn't mean that either does in fact. But what the hell - you can only go so far..

Also I do not think the color blindness / spiritual blindness comparison is a good one on any level. The fact is that you can still prove the existence of a color to those who are unable to see it.

That's your fault for turning an analogy into a proof.

Spiritual blindness need not be demonstrable empirically in order to be so. If folk are then the world operates one way. If they are not, then it operates in another.

This is not so of the “spiritual blindness” claim. With that claim, to continue the analogy, not only can the “mark” not “see” the color (god)… but the person claiming the color’s (god) existence is also entirely unable to offer a shred of argument, data, evidence or reasons to lend even a modicum of credence to the claim it is there.

The mark isn't attempting to prove anything. The mark is attempting to stalemate your postion. If you can leverage your computer screen above my God then you'll be on the way to check mate.

nozzferrahhtoo · 26-10-2011 7:56am

And as I said exagerating uncertainties in this fashion is not helpful. There is a common reality you accept, or act like you accept, when you use that screen to contact and engage in discourse with those other minds. If you want to take discourse seriously and accept that common reality then do so. If you want to play this "I doubt anything or anyone exists" style of play then do not expect anyone to take you seriously.... especially when you act like you do not take yourself seriously in that regard by continuing to use the things that might not exist in order to discourse with minds that also might not. In fact given we all just exist in your mind in that case.... it is clearly vast parts of yourself that can not even take yourself seriously!

I can certainly understand the position though. As soon as you accept the common reality we all share, and the minds in it, and the existence of things like computer screens... you are immediately accepting a reality in which you literally have no arguments, evidence, data, or reasons to substantiate your claim there is a god. Or if you do you at least have not yet presented them in your near 4000 posts on these forums.

So I can at least maintain some level of sympathy for your need to retreat into a reality where the existence of anything at all is in equal doubt and so god becomes just as plausible as any other neurotic fantasy that careens into your consciousness.

As for spiritual blindness, it is nothing about "turning it into a proof" and is everything to do with simply comparing the analogies. Again with color blindness you can still prove the existence of the color to the person who is unable to see it. With god.... as I said in near 4000 posts.... squat. Diddly. Zilch. Nadda. Nichts. Nothing. Feck all.

antiskeptic · 26-10-2011 5:06pm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And as I said exagerating uncertainties in this fashion is not helpful. There is a common reality you accept, or act like you accept, when you use that screen to contact and engage in discourse with those other minds. If you want to take discourse seriously and accept that common reality then do so. If you want to play this "I doubt anything or anyone exists" style of play then do not expect anyone to take you seriously.... especially when you act like you do not take yourself seriously in that regard by continuing to use the things that might not exist in order to discourse with minds that also might not. In fact given we all just exist in your mind in that case.... it is clearly vast parts of yourself that can not even take yourself seriously!

That's a very long winded way of saying "stalemate".

I can certainly understand the position though. As soon as you accept the common reality we all share, and the minds in it, and the existence of things like computer screens... you are immediately accepting a reality in which you literally have no arguments, evidence, data, or reasons to substantiate your claim there is a god. Or if you do you at least have not yet presented them in your near 4000 posts on these forums.

On the contrary.

The question isn't whether there is or isn't evidence (there clearly is). The question is whether that evidence adds up to the conviction that God exists. I find the combined evidence convincing and the attempts to explain it away unconvincing. Others see things the other way around.

As for spiritual blindness, it is nothing about "turning it into a proof" and is everything to do with simply comparing the analogies. Again with color blindness you can still prove the existence of the color to the person who is unable to see it. With god.... as I said in near 4000 posts.... squat. Diddly. Zilch. Nadda. Nichts. Nothing. Feck all.

The analogy illustrates the potential for the problem as laying with the receiver and not the (lack of) transmitter. The color analogy being limited (in that even with faulty equipment, the receiver can 'detect' colour by inferrance) doesn't alter the main point of the analogy.

It can easily be so that faulty reception equipment results in no reception of any sort being possible for a receiver.

dmw07 · 27-10-2011 7:27am

antiskeptic wrote: »

The question isn't whether there is or isn't evidence (there clearly is). The question is whether that evidence adds up to the conviction that God exists. I find the combined evidence convincing and the attempts to explain it away unconvincing. Others see things the other way around.

Hi antiskeptic,
Can you explain this please as i have trawled books, the internet and had lengthy talks with my former local priest over the years but have never gotten to this conclusion. Not even remotely close.

A few caveats though, i'll explain my reasons why.

Outside of;
The bible. Where to start. Written by men with a primitive understanding of the world, mostly several years after the person now named Jesus died and partly a thousand years before him based on hearsay, imagined scenes where god interacted with humans, previous pagan traditions and the zodiac. IMO, It is all riddled with inaccuracies, mistruths, fables, fantasy, lies and shows god in a very bad light.

The gospels. All of them. These texts contradict each other. Parts of the virgin birth and crucifixion are completely omitted by key followers and only show up in later gospels written over 100 years after Jesus died. They were strangely all written between 50-150 years after Jesus' died. The later ones, i'm not sure who by. It was not the original follower anyway. And they also tell us that Jesus was taken down from the cross, legs unbroken and had no nails in his hands so there is no evidence he died on the cross in some gospels. They tell us Jesus liked Mary M the most and kissed her all the time. So these are not good books to reference as they can bite back.

Subjective brain functionality. Wants, wishes, personal experiences etc do not count. They can't be shown or proven to anyone just as much as a psychosis patient can't show someone his/her friend (No malice intended to anyone with this analogy) nor a person suffering from retinal disorder can explain an apparition properly without making it up.

To sum up, no books written by men many years before or after Jesus (God did not write these) or no personal opinion. I have many such pieces of evidence, i just can't use them outside of my own thinking.

The reason for this long winded tirade is that I'm currently involved in a talk with my catholic/christian girlfriend and both of us are stuck and unable to come up with any conclusive proof of gods existence outside of a persons mind, or the bible, or what our priests told us. Which when contacted recently were not of great help. One did promise to get back to us with some observations.

After agreeing that god may or may not exist and that he may or may not have started life/evolution but definitely does not have any influence on it, we moved onto Jesus as god can't be directly proven to be real. Right now we are weeding through possible glimpses of Jesus' supernatural ability other than what has been accredited to many other men before, during and after Jesus' death i.e. healing the sick, dying and resurrecting, born on the 25th just before the three stars known as the three kings line up, died at Easter. We are looking for something like knowledge outside of his time e.g. dinosaurs, non flat earth, earth not being centre of the universe, Nazareth being covered in Ice at one point, multiple universes, cells, mentions of countries not known to people of Galile at the time, mentions of metals or materials not known to people at the time, evolution etc.

Now I know you can't use the gospel, or bible as reference (To my knowledge Jesus never wrote a passage in these) but surely there are texts or scriptures or clues of some value outside the control of the catholic church. Christianity is bigger than the catholic church.

Even a steer in the right direction would be helpful.

nozzferrahhtoo · 27-10-2011 8:17am

antiskeptic wrote: »

That's a very long winded way of saying "stalemate".

Had that been what I intended to say, I would have said it. I was saying nothing of the sort. Try reading it again.

Simply saying it is "clear" there is evidence does not magically mean there is. It is far from clear to me given no one has stopped to show me a shred of even an iota of it. Least of all on this thread nor any of the near 4000 posts you yourself have posted. It is not simply that I have been shown very little argument, evidence, data or reasons to even lend credence to the claim or to tip the scales of conviction... I have been shown NO arguments evidence data or reasons to even lend credence to the claims. Ever.

Simply declaring based on nothing that those who have been shown no evidence are just unable to see it due to "faulty receivers" is nothing short of a cop out really.

antiskeptic · 27-10-2011 9:22am

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Had that been what I intended to say, I would have said it. I was saying nothing of the sort. Try reading it again.

I was speaking somewhat tongue in cheek.

Your 'argument' consists of an enormous special plead. The assumption you make about the nature of reality morphs seamlessly into objective fact.

My argument begins from first principles. That might not be convenient to you

Simply saying it is "clear" there is evidence does not magically mean there is. It is far from clear to me given no one has stopped to show me a shred of even an iota of it. Least of all on this thread nor any of the near 4000 posts you yourself have posted. It is not simply that I have been shown very little argument, evidence, data or reasons to even lend credence to the claim or to tip the scales of conviction... I have been shown NO arguments evidence data or reasons to even lend credence to the claims. Ever.

One clear piece of evidence is the testimony of those who claim they saw and heard what they supposedly saw and heard. And both you and I need to come to conclusions about that. That you write it off doesn't mean it's not true. Nor does my writing it on mean it's true.

What matters is whether you are convinced by that piece of evidence or not. You don't get to decide whether it is evidence-given-in-consideration or not.

Simply declaring based on nothing that those who have been shown no evidence are just unable to see it due to "faulty receivers" is nothing short of a cop out really.

What it is in fact is a dilemma (and a genuine one at that). It can be the way I'm convinced it is. It can be the way you are convinced it is.

So far so (stale) stalemate.

nozzferrahhtoo · 27-10-2011 9:35am

I do apologize if I missed the lounge in cheek nature of your comments. Often when discussing the stand points of theism it is difficult to separate humor from what they actually believe. The two are often near indistinguishable and that is in person, let alone on the internet when the only thing one has to go on is text and often people assign the wrong tone to text.

However none of this deals with the issue that over exaggerating uncertainties in order to put everything on the same level of uncertainty as god… in a vain attempt to make the god idea more plausible… simply is not going to hold water.

If personal testimony is evidence for you then we have an issue because there are personal testimonies of all kinds of neurotic notions coming from all over the world. I do not accept them if they are unsubstantiated and with most of them you likely do not either. Why therefore you just happen to accept the ones that are convenient to your agenda while rejecting all the rest… likely for the same reasons I reject them… is not clear.

Making up spiritual blindness and appealing to it does not help your cause either. You simply make up a god, then you make up spiritual blindness in order to explain away your lack of evidence for that god. You can not simply declare a blindness exists if you are entirely unable to evidence the existence of the thing people are supposedly blind TO. It would appear you are simply making things up to support things you have made up. Made up things to support made up things to support made up things could end up being a long chain… but at some time you will have to substantiate one of your claims to hold up the chain or you are simply pulling yourself up by the bootstraps as they say.

At least if I told someone they were color blind I could prove to them there was actually something there they are blind TO and can convince them therefore color blindness exists. This is not so of your claims as you are not only claiming the blindness exists on no evidence, you are claiming the thing people are blind to exists on no evidence and hence your "argument" (Read: Fantasy) is circular.

Michael Nugent speaks for Atheism

Comments