Searching for GOD...

[Gordon]

You've done it again Gordon....talk of human morality......Straight into earthquakes!

Just continuing what you started: would you agree though that earthquakes were not to be in the interests of people? Surely the kind of thing an interventionist all-loving God would prevent.

As regards human morality I'd have thought, given the all the tortuous discussions we had on TACTDJFF when Alien was around, that my opinions on the morality of people were clear - or have you forgotten all that stuff.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Just continuing what you started: would you agree though that earthquakes were not to be in the interests of people? Surely the kind of thing an interventionist all-loving God would prevent.

So God is definitively bad Gordon. You cannot square that with moral irrealism, moral Zeitgeist and making morality kissing cousins with aesthetic taste............

You are an absolute moralist.

What I would challenge though is your implied defintion of loving and how that applies to God. For instance, can humans who are imperfect within their own definitions of love, possibly judge God?

I would say earthquakes are a natural phenomenon and morally neutral and therefore they don't enter an argument into morality.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

As regards human morality I'd have thought, given the all the tortuous discussions we had on TACTDJFF when Alien was around, that my opinions on the morality of people were clear - or have you forgotten all that stuff.

Sorry Gordon when I see things such as TACTDJFF (whatever that is?) I just switch off. Reference to your archives will probably not reveal any contributions to these discussions from me and one cannot forget what one never knew in the first place.

[Gordon]

So God is definitively bad Gordon. You cannot square that with moral irrealism, moral Zeitgeist and making morality kissing cousins with aesthetic taste............

You are an absolute moralist.

What I would challenge though is your implied defintion of loving and how that applies to God. For instance, can humans who are imperfect within their own definitions of love, possibly judge God?

I would say earthquakes are a natural phenomenon and morally neutral and therefore they don't enter an argument into morality.

Don't be silly, Vlad - I have always held the view that morality is subjective: but you know this, unless you haven't been paying attention again. That would also apply to, and for the sake or argument we'll assume there is a God, any moral pronouncements made by this God, which would just be its opinion, and its opinion is just as amenable to challenge as your opinion, or mine.

As regards earthquakes and the like I take it you are aware of the so-called 'Problem of Evil'? 

[Gordon]

Sorry Gordon when I see things such as TACTDJFF (whatever that is?) I just switch off.

It seems you do that quite a lot.

Reference to your archives will probably not reveal any contributions to these discussions from me and one cannot forget what one never knew in the first place.

That would explain your mistake in thinking I was an 'absolute moralist'.

btw TACTDJFF is an acronym for 'Torture A Child To Death Just For Fun' and Alien advanced this an an example of objective morality, arguing that it was always morally wrong and had been from time immemorial - iirc it was an example culled from the odious William Lane Craig.

A number of us tried to show Alien that it wasn't an example of objective morality at all and that he (and WLC) were wrong to think it was.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Don't be silly, Vlad - I have always held the view that morality is subjective: but you know this, unless you haven't been paying attention again. That would also apply to, and for the sake or argument we'll assume there is a God, any moral pronouncements made by this God, which would just be its opinion, and its opinion is just as amenable to challenge as your opinion, or mine.

As regards earthquakes and the like I take it you are aware of the so-called 'Problem of Evil'?

If it is subjective what right do you, I or society have a) any right to inflict our views and penalties on anybody but more importantly declare any moral validity to our doing so?..........That certainly constitutes a ''problem of evil.''

Concerning the problem of evil. If you are saying that evil is subjective what evil could you possibly be talking about? If you do not believe there is such a thing as evil, why not do the honest thing and yourself a favour and dispense with it?

[Gordon]

If it is subjective what right do you, I or society have a) any right to inflict our views and penalties on anybody but more importantly declare any moral validity to our doing so?..........That certainly constitutes a ''problem of evil.''

It may be, but it isn't the 'Problem of Evil' I was alluding to.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil

If you are saying that evil is subjective what evil could you possibly be talking about?

Anything that I subjectively think of as 'evil' of course.
 

If you do not believe there is such a thing as evil, why not do the honest thing and yourself a favour and dispense with it?

I don't think 'evil' is a thing: that would be reification. It is a label, like 'good'.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

btw TACTDJFF is an acronym for 'Torture A Child To Death Just For Fun' and Alien advanced this an an example of objective morality, arguing that it was always morally wrong and had been from time immemorial - iirc it was an example culled from the odious William Lane Craig.

A number of us tried to show Alien that it wasn't an example of objective morality at all and that he (and WLC) were wrong to think it was.

1: If Alien and ''The Master'' were wrong to argue what they did what was the right answer?
2: Further evidence that the New atheist movement is a fundamentalist stealth religion. You are using William Craig as some christian fundamentalist might invoke the Devil......IOW you guys are not arguing against Christianity but merely competing with it.
3: So you mustered the posse....isn't mention of that an argumentum ad populum?

[Gordon]

1: If Alien and ''The Master'' were wrong to argue what they did what was the right answer?

They failed to demonstrate, via that example, that morality is objective.

2: Further evidence that the New atheist movement is a fundamentalist stealth religion.

Atheism isn't a religion: this has been explained to you before.

You are using William Craig as some christian fundamentalist might invoke the Devil......IOW you guys are not arguing against Christianity but merely competing with it.

Nope - just pointing out his arguments are poor, not that this has stopped some enthusiastic Christians from falling for them.

3: So you mustered the posse....isn't mention of that an argumentum ad populum?

Since when did two people become a posse, Sheriff?

[Stranger]

I am not against the evolution of instinct. I have no evidence for or against protomorality. But what is clear is that people who declare protomorality as the evolution of instincts abandon this darwinian process for the movable feast, changing through things like zeitgeist and aesthetic taste and  memes and a host of other non darwinian processes....and that my boy is what is known as a dogs dinner not a philosophical triumph.

I have no idea why you are finding the concept so difficult. Memes aren't genes and the correspondence with biological evolution is never going to be exact. However, change over time and different change within different populations are characteristics of both biological and cultural evolution.

Morality is a bit of a dog's dinner - it's messy imprecise and difficult. That's life.

Then again, your old book is a messy, inconsistent, self-contradictory, and often downright obnoxious, when it comes to morality...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

They failed to demonstrate, via that example, that morality is objective.

Atheism isn't a religion: this has been explained to you before.

Nope - just pointing out his arguments are poor, not that this has stopped some enthusiastic Christians from falling for them.

Since when did two people become a posse, Sheriff?

I supported Ekim's post on a societal definition of morality and sin. Worth a read.
I am once again indebted to Bluehillside for his invocation of the moral compass but have to point out that the analogy is meaningless for a truly subjective morality and a moral irrealism.

However a subjective morality is exactly an analogy to a compass which has lost it's ability to point north with the task now divided between moral guesswork, strength in being able to push the useless needle and whim which is how you guys suggest it operates!

With regards to atheism not being a religion. I'm afraid thanks to your lords and masters you have now started your own little Demonology. Read DS Wilson on the new atheism as a stealth religion.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Morality is a bit of a dog's dinner - it's messy imprecise and difficult. That's life.

No it is your explanation of it which is a mutts meal. That's it's Pedigree, Chum.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Morality is a bit of a dog's dinner - it's messy imprecise and difficult. That's life.

Oh for goodness sake....Argumentum ad Little book of-um

[Stranger]

No it is your explanation of it which is a mutts meal. That's it's Pedigree, Chum.

Oh for goodness sake....Argumentum ad Little book of-um

I note that you have neither presented a refutation nor a non-messy alternative...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I note that you have neither presented a refutation nor a non-messy alternative...

I am not arguing that morality is not messy but how it got in that mess.
Your portrayal of the Christian argument eventual got put right.......... by me and I hope you have eschewed your strawman versions of it.

Can we have something a bit less Little book platitudinous by way of argument from you?

[Stranger]

I am not arguing that morality is not messy but how it got in that mess.

Really? You're hiding it well. What exactly is your argument?

Your portrayal of the Christian argument eventual got put right.......... by me and I hope you have eschewed your strawman versions of it.

Utter drivel - you just ran away from my main point, which for the record was: any test that everybody fails is clearly inappropriate, unfair and unjust.

Can we have something a bit less Little book platitudinous by way of argument from you?

Wow! Matthew 7:3-5.

[wigginhall]

This all reminds me of that old joke - Christianity came up with a solution, and then had to root around looking for a problem.   In relation to morality, the problem seems to be that we have to be redeemed from something that we didn't realize that we had, i.e. sin, or original sin. 

[Maeght]

That could encompass religious views though it is such a broad view .

Yes. And?

Being a societal view how does it translate for the individual since it suggests morality on the basis of ''not getting caught by society''?

No it doesn't.

[floo]

This all reminds me of that old joke - Christianity came up with a solution, and then had to root around looking for a problem.   In relation to morality, the problem seems to be that we have to be redeemed from something that we didn't realize that we had, i.e. sin, or original sin.

The idea of original sin is crazy, if Adam existed, how could future generations be responsible for his mistakes?

[Maeght]

[quote author=Private Frazer link=topic=10333.msg715733#msg715733 date=1517145166
With regards to atheism not being a religion. I'm afraid thanks to your lords and masters you have now started your own little Demonology. Read DS Wilson on the new atheism as a stealth religion.
[/quote]

He is an interesting read. One thing he points out is that he does not consider all atheism to be a stealth religion, which he defines as any movement which distorts the facts of the real world for the purpose of motivating a given suite of behaviours. He considers New Atheism to be a stealth religion, and I can see his point.I don't consider myself a New Atheist, and have never read God is Not Great. I have read the God Delusion and didn't agree with some of it. Dawkins is excellent on the science but not so much on philosophy and other aspects of religion.

[ippy]

[quote author=Private Frazer link=topic=10333.msg715733#msg715733 date=1517145166
With regards to atheism not being a religion. I'm afraid thanks to your lords and masters you have now started your own little Demonology. Read DS Wilson on the new atheism as a stealth religion.


He is an interesting read. One thing he points out is that he does not consider all atheism to be a stealth religion, which he defines as any movement which distorts the facts of the real world for the purpose of motivating a given suite of behaviours. He considers New Atheism to be a stealth religion, and I can see his point.I don't consider myself a New Atheist, and have never read God is Not Great. I have read the God Delusion and didn't agree with some of it. Dawkins is excellent on the science but not so much on philosophy and other aspects of religion.

I'd be interested to know what R D was missing in your opinion about the philosophy and other aspects of religion, only I'm so non-religious I can't see that there's anything worth knowing about religions philosophy other than how it has affected peoples lives with the undoubted power it has and has used, not always for the good.

I'm not that keen on the term new atheist, it's as correct as using the word stereo when the user is actually referring to a radio, surly a non-religious believer is a non-religious believer what's the difference prefixing the term with new.

I think 9/11 was the act that made so many speak out about, in most cases, about their long held ideas about the discomfort they have with religions in general, instead of keeping it to themselves, assuming this is so the only thing new would be not holding back any more, the lack of respect or reverence for religious ideas didn't alter. 

Regards, ippy

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'd be interested to know what R D was missing in your opinion about the philosophy and other aspects of religion, only I'm so non-religious I can't see that there's anything worth knowing about religions philosophy other than how it has affected peoples lives with the undoubted power it has and has used, not always for the good.

I'm not that keen on the term new atheist, it's as correct as using the word stereo when the user is actually referring to a radio, surly a non-religious believer is a non-religious believer what's the difference prefixing the term with new.

I think 9/11 was the act that made so many speak out about, in most cases, about their long held ideas about the discomfort they have with religions in general, instead of keeping it to themselves, assuming this is so the only thing new would be not holding back any more, the lack of respect or reverence for religious ideas didn't alter. 

Regards, ippy

If one is ignorant about something that is OK until they start to pronounce on that which they are ignorant of. In the end the complaint about Dawkins is that he has ended up merely arguing from ridicule......or as other atheists have more seriously complained he does not apply the intellectual rigour that he otherwise espouses.

Dawkins is then reduced to treating these atheist critics in the same way and ends up in conflict with atheists and scientists and others he suspects of not holding his purity of thought forgetting as a graduate chemist from Oxford once said he is ''a mere biologist''.

In certain quarters and not just religion people hold a similar lack of respect for his efforts at philosophy.....but I guess he's just your kind of guy. Is though his presence a lack of intellectual respect or is it just an example of late 20th century emotional incontinence?

Dennis Sloan Wilson does include the New Atheists view of the harm religion does in the world as a departure from reality and includes that as evidence of stealth religion.

[Stranger]

......or as other atheists have more seriously complained he does not apply the intellectual rigour that he otherwise espouses.

Where is the intellectually rigorous argument that there is a god to actually study? I haven't ever been presented with an argument that theology is anything more than the study of old fairy tales, that wasn't obviously flawed.

Theology is studied in humanities departments of universities, like literature. It's intellectually rigorous only in the sense that you can make a good case for something from the source material (which in this case is hopelessly contradictory, so you can make all sorts of cases that contradict each other).

Where is the argument that the source material refers to something objectively real?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Where is the intellectually rigorous argument that there is a god to actually study? I haven't ever been presented with an argument that theology is anything more than the study of old fairy tales, that wasn't obviously flawed.

Feser.

[Stranger]

Feser.

I watched a whole hour of one of his arguments on youtube - tedious and obviously wrong.