not this again, biggs. i already concluded this matter here a year ago. don't let my words go in one ear and out the other like all the other knuckleheads here.
a) if the only universe that can logically and physically exist is one which must include suffering as such, god would have no choice but to create it as such, and is therefore not omnipotent. he himself is not the ultimate law giver. that is, he's just an intermediary. see russell's 'why i am not a Christian' for more on this 'natural law' argument.
b) on the other hand, if a logically and physically possible universe can exist without such suffering, but god chooses to create this one instead, he's not benevolent. we would call the universe full of gratuitous suffering like your homegirl astro cat explained in her seminal thread.
if A, then euthyphro's dilemma concludes with the fact that what is good is good not becuz god said so, but independently and above god's caprice; this universe, with its suffering, is the only possible universe that can exist. in this universe, if there is anything 'good', i wouldn't consult god to find out. he's irrelevent if A.
if B, i sure as shit ain't gonna worship or praise this god now, and will be actively engaged in defying him to create a world for human beings with less gratuitous suffering (ergo my marxism trip). but how does one defy a god that doesn't exist? ah. rather i defy religion in the humanist spirit. i defy and destroy any remnants of this god symbol i can find. burn the churches. recycle the bibles for re-usable paper. throw all the priests and rabbis and imams into Feuerbachian re-education camps.
Christianity
-
promethean75
- Posts: 7113
- Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm
Re: Christianity
Last edited by promethean75 on Mon Dec 25, 2023 10:04 pm, edited 2 times in total.
-
iambiguous
- Posts: 11317
- Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm
Re: Christianity
Oh, yeah, I forgot about that.promethean75 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 25, 2023 9:56 pm not this again, biggs. i already concluded this matter here a year ago. don't let my words go in one ear and out the other like all the other knuckleheads here.
a) if the only universe that can logically and physically exist is one which must include suffering as such, god would have no choice but to create it as such, and is therefore not omnipotent. he himself is not the ultimate law giver. that is, he's just an intermediary. see russell's 'why i am not a Christian' for more on this 'natural law' argument.
b) on the other hand, if a logically and physically possible universe can exist without such suffering, but god chooses not to create this one instead, he's not benevolent. we would call the universe full of gratuitous suffering like your homegirl astro cat explained in her seminal thread.
if A, then euthyphro's dilemma concludes with the fact that what is good is good not becuz god said so, but independently and above god's caprice; this universe, with its suffering, is the only possible universe that can exist. in this universe, if there is anything 'good', i wouldn't consult god to find out. he's irrelevent if A.
if B, i sure as shit ain't gonna worship or praise this god now, and will be actively engaged in defying him to create a world for human beings with less gratuitous suffering (ergo my marxism trip). but how does one defy a god that doesn't exist? ah. rather i defy religion in the humanist spirit. i defy and destroy any remnants of this god symbol i can find. burn the churches. recycle the bibles for re-usable paper. throw all the priests and rabbis and imams in Feuerbachian re-education camps.
Note to Astro Cat:
Was it something I said?
-
promethean75
- Posts: 7113
- Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm
Re: Christianity
Btw if anybody is unclear about what's goin on here, here's a post on quora about the issue by the master, RL.
....
An even better question, what determines ‘right’ from ‘wrong’ according to ‘god’?
It seems theists have a clear choice to make, either:
(1) ‘God’ decides what is ‘good’ or ‘evil’ based on an ‘objective standard’ that is independent of ‘him’. Given that theory, morality would still be ‘objective’, but ‘god’ had no part in establishing it; ‘he’ just passes the message along to us.
Or:
(2) Whatever ‘god’ says is ‘good’ or ‘evil’ is ‘good’ or ‘evil’ just because ‘he’ says it is. There is no independent standard by means of which what ‘he’ says may be judged correct or incorrect, ‘good’ or ‘bad’. In that case, morality isn’t ‘objective’, it is based on the ‘subjective’ opinion of ‘god’.
If (2) is the case, then there is no such thing as “absolute evil”, or anything ”morally wrong” other than what ‘god’ said was so. “Wrong” and “evil” would therefore merely mean ‘god’ disapproves of whatever it is; “good” would be whatever he approved of.
However, as we have seen from the Bible (especially the Old Testament), ‘god’ changes ‘his’ mind all the time concerning what ‘he’ approves or disapproves, what ‘he’ says is ‘good’ or what ‘he’ deems ‘bad’. In that case, there is no ‘absolute wrong’; there can’t be if ‘god’ changes ‘his’ mind all the time. It isn’t possible to change one’s mind over something that is an ‘absolute’, or claim it is ‘objective’, especially if so many major faiths — like Christianity, Judaism and Islam —, disagree over what ‘god’ supposedly commands/condemns. Even within Christianity, there is no overall agreement. Just try getting a Quaker to agree with a Roman Catholic over the concept of a ‘Just War’ or the use of condoms!
As soon as you admit ‘god’ can and does change ‘his’ mind, you concede that whatever it was, wasn’t ‘absolute’, to begin with.
Moreover, (given option (2)), anyone praising ‘god’ and calling ‘him’ “good” is merely saying that ‘god’ simply does what ‘he’ approves of (at that time, but maybe not later), since there is no independent standard by means of which anyone can judge ‘him’ to be ‘good’, or praise ‘him’ for the same.
On the other hand, if (1) were the case, then there would be an independent standard, which ‘god’ had no hand in establishing, that no one can alter, modify or cancel, and which tells us what is ‘right’ and ‘wrong’. Of course, that means we didn’t need ‘god’ to tell us, after all.
Hence, with respect to morality, if theists choose option (2) they can kiss ‘Goodbye!’ to ‘Absolute Morality’ along with any right they currently think they have to praise ‘god’; but if they choose (1), they can wave a fond ‘Farewell!’ to any idea that ’god’ is the source of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’.
Theists now have no right to point their grubby fingers at us atheists (at least with respect to morality). They can’t account for it without undermining the ‘goodness’ of ‘god’ or torpedoing ‘Absolute Morality’, itself. On the other hand, once they acknowledge there are ‘moral absolutes’ (that even ‘god’ has to observe), they in effect agree with us atheists that we didn’t need ‘god’ to tell us ‘right’ from ‘wrong’, in the first place.
I hasten to add that I reject both ways of characterising ‘the source of morality’; I am merely alerting theists to what is in effect a fatal dilemma for them to chew on (it was in fact formulated by Plato over two thousand years ago, and for which there is no effective reply, certainly none so far from theists — but only if you view ethics and morality this way).
I posted something similar to this on Quora a year or so ago. A theist did try to respond to my demolition of his entire worldview (at least concerning morality). Fellow Quorans can read his reply and my response to him in the comment section below this answer of mine:
Rosa Lichtenstein's answer to: If atheists admit that if God does not exist, is there absolutely no such thing as anything being “Wrong”?
And then decide if the aforementioned theist managed to defend his ideas effectively.
Other theists are now invited to try and show where the above dilemma goes wrong.
Good luck with that one…
....
An even better question, what determines ‘right’ from ‘wrong’ according to ‘god’?
It seems theists have a clear choice to make, either:
(1) ‘God’ decides what is ‘good’ or ‘evil’ based on an ‘objective standard’ that is independent of ‘him’. Given that theory, morality would still be ‘objective’, but ‘god’ had no part in establishing it; ‘he’ just passes the message along to us.
Or:
(2) Whatever ‘god’ says is ‘good’ or ‘evil’ is ‘good’ or ‘evil’ just because ‘he’ says it is. There is no independent standard by means of which what ‘he’ says may be judged correct or incorrect, ‘good’ or ‘bad’. In that case, morality isn’t ‘objective’, it is based on the ‘subjective’ opinion of ‘god’.
If (2) is the case, then there is no such thing as “absolute evil”, or anything ”morally wrong” other than what ‘god’ said was so. “Wrong” and “evil” would therefore merely mean ‘god’ disapproves of whatever it is; “good” would be whatever he approved of.
However, as we have seen from the Bible (especially the Old Testament), ‘god’ changes ‘his’ mind all the time concerning what ‘he’ approves or disapproves, what ‘he’ says is ‘good’ or what ‘he’ deems ‘bad’. In that case, there is no ‘absolute wrong’; there can’t be if ‘god’ changes ‘his’ mind all the time. It isn’t possible to change one’s mind over something that is an ‘absolute’, or claim it is ‘objective’, especially if so many major faiths — like Christianity, Judaism and Islam —, disagree over what ‘god’ supposedly commands/condemns. Even within Christianity, there is no overall agreement. Just try getting a Quaker to agree with a Roman Catholic over the concept of a ‘Just War’ or the use of condoms!
As soon as you admit ‘god’ can and does change ‘his’ mind, you concede that whatever it was, wasn’t ‘absolute’, to begin with.
Moreover, (given option (2)), anyone praising ‘god’ and calling ‘him’ “good” is merely saying that ‘god’ simply does what ‘he’ approves of (at that time, but maybe not later), since there is no independent standard by means of which anyone can judge ‘him’ to be ‘good’, or praise ‘him’ for the same.
On the other hand, if (1) were the case, then there would be an independent standard, which ‘god’ had no hand in establishing, that no one can alter, modify or cancel, and which tells us what is ‘right’ and ‘wrong’. Of course, that means we didn’t need ‘god’ to tell us, after all.
Hence, with respect to morality, if theists choose option (2) they can kiss ‘Goodbye!’ to ‘Absolute Morality’ along with any right they currently think they have to praise ‘god’; but if they choose (1), they can wave a fond ‘Farewell!’ to any idea that ’god’ is the source of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’.
Theists now have no right to point their grubby fingers at us atheists (at least with respect to morality). They can’t account for it without undermining the ‘goodness’ of ‘god’ or torpedoing ‘Absolute Morality’, itself. On the other hand, once they acknowledge there are ‘moral absolutes’ (that even ‘god’ has to observe), they in effect agree with us atheists that we didn’t need ‘god’ to tell us ‘right’ from ‘wrong’, in the first place.
I hasten to add that I reject both ways of characterising ‘the source of morality’; I am merely alerting theists to what is in effect a fatal dilemma for them to chew on (it was in fact formulated by Plato over two thousand years ago, and for which there is no effective reply, certainly none so far from theists — but only if you view ethics and morality this way).
I posted something similar to this on Quora a year or so ago. A theist did try to respond to my demolition of his entire worldview (at least concerning morality). Fellow Quorans can read his reply and my response to him in the comment section below this answer of mine:
Rosa Lichtenstein's answer to: If atheists admit that if God does not exist, is there absolutely no such thing as anything being “Wrong”?
And then decide if the aforementioned theist managed to defend his ideas effectively.
Other theists are now invited to try and show where the above dilemma goes wrong.
Good luck with that one…
-
attofishpi
- Posts: 13319
- Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
- Location: Orion Spur
- Contact:
Re: Christianity
Oh, well then, let's invite Him in. I doubt he wrote the shite below, looks more like your take on whatever Rick wrote.promethean75 wrote:Btw if anybody is unclear about what's goin on here, here's a post on quora about the issue by the master, RL.
RickLewis wrote:....
Why? I don't see any of the below providing a reasonable CLEAR choice. Oh, is that supposed to be the catch...ooonooo.promethean75 wrote:It seems theists have a clear choice to make, either:
The below appears to entirely be premised on this catch, that theists must believe in some requirement for objective morality out of God's existence.
WHY?
So what? So, morality is subjective since we are all wo/MEN.promethean75 wrote:(1) ‘God’ decides what is ‘good’ or ‘evil’ based on an ‘objective standard’ that is independent of ‘him’. Given that theory, morality would still be ‘objective’, but ‘god’ had no part in establishing it; ‘he’ just passes the message along to us.
Or:
(2) Whatever ‘god’ says is ‘good’ or ‘evil’ is ‘good’ or ‘evil’ just because ‘he’ says it is. There is no independent standard by means of which what ‘he’ says may be judged correct or incorrect, ‘good’ or ‘bad’. In that case, morality isn’t ‘objective’, it is based on the ‘subjective’ opinion of ‘god’.
We all, atheists and theists can determine for ourselves what we personally consider absolute with regards to good or evil. Whether God has such a degree of judgement matters not.promethean75 wrote:If (2) is the case, then there is no such thing as “absolute evil”, or anything ”morally wrong” other than what ‘god’ said was so. “Wrong” and “evil” would therefore merely mean ‘god’ disapproves of whatever it is; “good” would be whatever he approved of.
..and your point being?promethean75 wrote:However, as we have seen from the Bible (especially the Old Testament), ‘god’ changes ‘his’ mind all the time concerning what ‘he’ approves or disapproves, what ‘he’ says is ‘good’ or what ‘he’ deems ‘bad’. In that case, there is no ‘absolute wrong’; there can’t be if ‘god’ changes ‘his’ mind all the time. It isn’t possible to change one’s mind over something that is an ‘absolute’, or claim it is ‘objective’, especially if so many major faiths — like Christianity, Judaism and Islam —, disagree over what ‘god’ supposedly commands/condemns. Even within Christianity, there is no overall agreement. Just try getting a Quaker to agree with a Roman Catholic over the concept of a ‘Just War’ or the use of condoms!
As soon as you admit ‘god’ can and does change ‘his’ mind, you concede that whatever it was, wasn’t ‘absolute’, to begin with.
I honestly didn't think I was (way back when I was a mere theist). Indeed, if I point my finger at anyone that steps out of the bounds of what I consider actions of morality, it is at "Christians" that are acting contrary to the teachings of Christ.promethean75 wrote:Moreover, (given option (2)), anyone praising ‘god’ and calling ‘him’ “good” is merely saying that ‘god’ simply does what ‘he’ approves of (at that time, but maybe not later), since there is no independent standard by means of which anyone can judge ‘him’ to be ‘good’, or praise ‘him’ for the same.
On the other hand, if (1) were the case, then there would be an independent standard, which ‘god’ had no hand in establishing, that no one can alter, modify or cancel, and which tells us what is ‘right’ and ‘wrong’. Of course, that means we didn’t need ‘god’ to tell us, after all.
Hence, with respect to morality, if theists choose option (2) they can kiss ‘Goodbye!’ to ‘Absolute Morality’ along with any right they currently think they have to praise ‘god’; but if they choose (1), they can wave a fond ‘Farewell!’ to any idea that ’god’ is the source of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’.
Theists now have no right to point their grubby fingers at us atheists (at least with respect to morality).
Pretty certain God holds those that believe in Him to a higher level to account for themselves also.
Oh, you found a dumb arse theist on the internet, well well done PROM!promethean75 wrote:They can’t account for it without undermining the ‘goodness’ of ‘god’ or torpedoing ‘Absolute Morality’, itself. On the other hand, once they acknowledge there are ‘moral absolutes’ (that even ‘god’ has to observe), they in effect agree with us atheists that we didn’t need ‘god’ to tell us ‘right’ from ‘wrong’, in the first place.
I hasten to add that I reject both ways of characterising ‘the source of morality’; I am merely alerting theists to what is in effect a fatal dilemma for them to chew on (it was in fact formulated by Plato over two thousand years ago, and for which there is no effective reply, certainly none so far from theists — but only if you view ethics and morality this way).
I posted something similar to this on Quora a year or so ago. A theist did try to respond to my demolition of his entire worldview (at least concerning morality). Fellow Quorans can read his reply and my response to him in the comment section below this answer of mine:
Rosa Lichtenstein's answer to: If atheists admit that if God does not exist, is there absolutely no such thing as anything being “Wrong”?
And then decide if the aforementioned theist managed to defend his ideas effectively.
Easy peasy - it's pure garbage. (there is no dilemma)promethean75 wrote:Other theists are now invited to try and show where the above dilemma goes wrong.
God is on both sides of the coin. You should taste the evil it can dish out..see how ye fare!
-
promethean75
- Posts: 7113
- Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm
Re: Christianity
had a few Fosters this afternoon, have ya?
-
attofishpi
- Posts: 13319
- Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
- Location: Orion Spur
- Contact:
Re: Christianity
Funny thing that..even most "poms" know that Ozzies don't drink Fosters. In fact, not once since I have lived here have I seen it sold on tap - and rarely in a fridge behind the bar.
IN FACT:- You could probably go to EVERY bar in Adelaide, and not find a single SHITE can of Fosters.
It's one of those great marketing thangs, some dickhead sorts in England drink the shite, but everyone knows a true Englishman drinks Ale.
In any case, what's your point?
-
promethean75
- Posts: 7113
- Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm
Re: Christianity
"You should taste the evil it can dish out..see how ye fare!"
oh dear, it's another great sufferer who's experienced the sadistic wrath of god.
let's compare notes. tell me your story first. wait lemme sit down so I don't faint.
what was it? u got fired from your desk job? your girlfriend dumped u? couldn't make rent and got evicted? broke your toe in a soccer match?
lemme tell u sumthin about suffering and injustice. u know that guy Job? that guy felt like a star from lifestyles of the rich and famous after he met me. i offered to let em shine my shoes when he threw himself at my feet.
oh dear, it's another great sufferer who's experienced the sadistic wrath of god.
let's compare notes. tell me your story first. wait lemme sit down so I don't faint.
what was it? u got fired from your desk job? your girlfriend dumped u? couldn't make rent and got evicted? broke your toe in a soccer match?
lemme tell u sumthin about suffering and injustice. u know that guy Job? that guy felt like a star from lifestyles of the rich and famous after he met me. i offered to let em shine my shoes when he threw himself at my feet.
-
attofishpi
- Posts: 13319
- Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
- Location: Orion Spur
- Contact:
Re: Christianity
Debating crap u post not your strong point is it.promethean75 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 26, 2023 1:14 pm "You should taste the evil it can dish out..see how ye fare!"
oh dear, it's another great sufferer who's experienced the sadistic wrath of god.
let's compare notes. tell me your story first. wait lemme sit down so I don't faint.
what was it? u got fired from your desk job? your girlfriend dumped u? couldn't make rent and got evicted? broke your toe in a soccer match?
lemme tell u sumthin about suffering and injustice. u know that guy Job? that guy felt like a star from lifestyles of the rich and famous after he met me. i offered to let em shine my shoes when he threw himself at my feet.
Losing a job? ..a girlfriend..? Pfff!! U got no idea. We wise don't speak of it...EVIL
So.
Something I learned from 3 little chaps sat on my mantlepiece, indeed the one of them that HALTED his output.
U SEE, U HEAR, but the other one, he doesn't speak....and for very good reason...
I hope the wise under_stand.
-
promethean75
- Posts: 7113
- Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm
Re: Christianity
^^^ what happens when philosophically curious but intellectually inept computer programmer tech support lonely guys with apophenia see the movie The Matrix.
-
attofishpi
- Posts: 13319
- Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
- Location: Orion Spur
- Contact:
Re: Christianity
..really? Is that all you can ascertain from that?
-
promethean75
- Posts: 7113
- Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm
Re: Christianity
listen buddy my new years resolution is to stop toying with people at philosophy forums, and you're not gonna blow this for me. so shove off!
-
attofishpi
- Posts: 13319
- Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
- Location: Orion Spur
- Contact:
Re: Christianity
Attempt to toy with me.promethean75 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 26, 2023 2:35 pm listen buddy my new years resolution is to stop toying with people at philosophy forums, and you're not gonna blow this for me. so shove off!
List the philosophers that inspired you to such depths of atheistic commitment.
-
promethean75
- Posts: 7113
- Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm
Re: Christianity
Bushwick Bill
Diane Sawyer
Joe Montana
Ralph Macchio
Richard Nixon
Salt n Pepa
Diane Sawyer
Joe Montana
Ralph Macchio
Richard Nixon
Salt n Pepa
-
attofishpi
- Posts: 13319
- Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
- Location: Orion Spur
- Contact:
Re: Christianity
Too scared of the sacred...lest they be attacked by my might.
..cough up coward.
..cough up coward.
-
promethean75
- Posts: 7113
- Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm
Re: Christianity
okay seriously
Holden Tudiks (mathematician, logician and inventor of the Turnip Machine)
St. Balbaderos Del Aksinata (Italian refugee who founded the Carlos Sanatana Monastery)
Johannes Habbletrap (engineer and fastest piano player in the world. Author of Franz's Lists, a complete guide to the most ridiculous scales)
Gustave Vonhamsonshmidt (oldest of The Young Hegelians and youngest of The Old Hegelians. co-founder of The Vienna Square)
Holden Tudiks (mathematician, logician and inventor of the Turnip Machine)
St. Balbaderos Del Aksinata (Italian refugee who founded the Carlos Sanatana Monastery)
Johannes Habbletrap (engineer and fastest piano player in the world. Author of Franz's Lists, a complete guide to the most ridiculous scales)
Gustave Vonhamsonshmidt (oldest of The Young Hegelians and youngest of The Old Hegelians. co-founder of The Vienna Square)