Antitheism

[bluehillside Retd.]

...but i'm on a flyer today

Ah, the farewell cry of the Kamikaze pilot...

It's an odd tactic isn't it. I say, "white is white"; Trollboy replies, "ah, so you think white is black then"; I reply, "no, what I said was that white is white"; and Trollboy comes back with, 'ah, so now you're qualifying what you actually mean".

Pathological dishonesty is one thing, but the shamelessness of it is remarkable. Ah well.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If the driver for the consensus was not getting caught, then you wouldn't make any rules to break, then nobody would "get caught"...

That would be fine if the rules were made by consensus. But it is the consensus bit that is the week part. Rules are produced more by hegemony. That is why there are more lower class in prisons and at various times, ethnic minorities.

[Stranger]

That would be fine if the rules were made by consensus. But it is the consensus bit that is the week part. Rules are produced more by hegemony. That is why there are more lower class in prisons and at various times, ethnic minorities.

You asked if the driver in the consensus was not getting caught. Do make up your mind what you're trying to argue with.

As I said before: it's a messy and complicated process. It also works differently in different societies. As I also said (and you ignored) we have exactly the same problems and process even if there is objective morality because there is no agreed method of discovering what it is.

Messy and complex either way.

Is the final moral driver for theists the belief that they'll always get caught if they do wrong?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Is the final moral driver for theists the belief that they'll always get caught if they do wrong?

I suppose it is something that results from a belief in God knowing all things, yes. But that is a realisation early on that in Christianity is a motivator to repentance rather than an increased moral effort in commandment adherence.

In Christianity the Christian loves God THEN does what he/she likes(Augustine). Everything should predicated on the love of God and it is love of God, self and neighbour which is the ultimate moral rule . On the other hand there are plenty of scriptural injunctions on giving proper regard to the law of the land.

[Stranger]

Well Vlad, I see you ignored the bit where I pointed out your inconsistency and also that those advocating an objective moral position face the same practical problems as those who regard morality as subjective...

I suppose it is something that results from a belief in God knowing all things, yes. But that is a realisation early on that in Christianity is a motivator to repentance rather than an increased moral effort in commandment adherence.

In Christianity the Christian loves God THEN does what he/she likes(Augustine). Everything should predicated on the love of God and it is love of God, self and neighbour which is the ultimate moral rule . On the other hand there are plenty of scriptural injunctions on giving proper regard to the law of the land.

First you make a sweeping generalization about a subjective moral consensus, now about Christians. As tends to be the way with sweeping generalizations - I suspect that neither are true.

Does god like what is morally good or are things morally good just because god likes them?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well Vlad, I see you ignored the bit where I pointed out your inconsistency and also that those advocating an objective moral position face the same practical problems as those who regard morality as subjective...

First you make a sweeping generalization about a subjective moral consensus, now about Christians. As tends to be the way with sweeping generalizations - I suspect that neither are true.

Does god like what is morally good or are things morally good just because god likes them?

God IS moral good.

[Stranger]

God IS moral good.

Not a being, then? Not the creator of the universe? Morally good according to whose standards? Your statement is essentially meaningless.

And you still ignored most of what I said....

[bluehillside Retd.]

Some,

And you still ignored most of what I said....

He always will - try asking Trollboy what method he proposes to take him from his "whatever pops into my head-ism" to "must also be true for you too" for example. He must have circumnavigated the globe running away from that one. Be fun too to see hm trying to square the circle of "God can do anything"/"God is moral good" and babies dying of brain cancer.

The usual cop out by the way when theistic assertions of this type collapse into contradiction is, "it's a mystery" but, as chummy is so busy making up misrepresentations of what other people say to answer a question that's put to him, I don't know whether he'd take the same line or just ignore it too.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Some,

He always will - try asking Trollboy what method he proposes to take him from his "whatever pops into my head-ism" to "must also be true for you too" for example. He must have circumnavigated the globe running away from that one. Be fun too to see hm trying to square the circle of "God can do anything"/"God is moral good" and babies dying of brain cancer.

The usual cop out by the way when theistic assertions of this type collapse into contradiction is, "it's a mystery" but, as chummy is so busy making up misrepresentations of what other people say to answer a question that's put to him, I don't know whether he'd take the same line or just ignore it too.

Saying ''we don't know'' is OK but saying that things are a mystery
is not OK. Hypocritical humbug Hillside. Your turn.

As for Something Strange......he suffers from vagueness.....how does one respond to that?

[Shaker]

Saying ''we don't know'' is OK but saying that things are a mystery
is not OK. Hypocritical humbug Hillside.

No, not really, since an atheist's "don't know" is precisely and exactly that but your "mystery" for some reason includes a god. Thus "don't know" includes whether gods exist or not but your 'mystery" incoporates a god who does baffling, arbitrary things indistinguisable from no god and random chance instead. One of these positions gets itself sliced and diced by Occam's Razor, the other doesn't.

Not comparable scenarios at all.

[Stranger]

Saying ''we don't know'' is OK but saying that things are a mystery
is not OK. Hypocritical humbug Hillside. Your turn.

No, lacking some information or enough evidence to draw a conclusion is okay. Dismissing an obvious logical absurdity with the word "mystery" is, as you would put it, turd polishing.

As for Something Strange......he suffers from vagueness.....how does one respond to that?

By pointing out the vagueness and asking for clarification.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Shakes,

No, not really, since an atheist's "don't know" is precisely and exactly that but your "mystery" for some reason includes a god. Not comparable scenarios at all.

That's true, but Trollboy has also - ever ever - missed the point: "don't knows" about facts like, say, the origin of the Universe are one thing; setting up a proposition that's internally contradictory ("god is good/god can do anything/innocents die" for example) means that the assertion collapses. Neither "don't know" not "it's a mystery" allow bad thinking to persist.

[Rhiannon]

Shakes,

That's true, but Trollboy has also - ever ever - missed the point: "don't knows" about facts like, say, the origin of the Universe is one thing; setting up a proposition that's internally contradictory ("god is good/god can do anything/innocents die" for example) means that the assertion collapses. Neither "don't know" not "it's a mystery" allow bad logic to remain.

Having been that side of the fence, 'it's a mystery' isn't meant to be logical. It's a kind of sticking plaster solution to the gaping wound caused by the question of  'why so much suffering?' in the faith of anyone who believes in a merciful, loving and omnipotent God.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, lacking some information or enough evidence to draw a conclusion is okay. Dismissing an obvious logical absurdity with the word "mystery" is, .

Well then as an atheist of integrity you will assemble your alleged logical absurdities for perusal.

[Stranger]

Well then as an atheist of integrity you will assemble your alleged logical absurdities for perusal.

You could start with #157 and #162 ("The Problem of Evil").

And you are still ignoring most of what I said, so you could then go back to addressing whether god chooses to be good or good is only good because it's what god chooses. Perhaps you could try something other than a meaningless slogan, this time?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You could start with #157 and #162 ("The Problem of Evil").

And you are still ignoring most of what I said, so you could then go back to addressing whether god chooses to be good or good is only good because it's what god chooses. Perhaps you could try something other than a meaningless slogan, this time?

In terms of 157 and 162, these are natural evil questions am I right?
Suffering is seen in the context of divine restoration of the human and the granting of eternal existence where death and suffering are not the end. Where suffering is in fact a human affair.
Given that death and suffering are not the end we will have passed them in due course although we will always be free to harbour a rage on them.

Against all this though atheism has no answer to suffering or evil except perhaps to explain it away or to make it the fault of others namely religionists and their Gods and to raise atheist hands in a chorus of 'sorry Guv, nothing to do with me'.

If you have an alternative take on suffering which doesn't involve blaming God and doesn't deny it's existence present it.
 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You could start with #157 and #162 ("The Problem of Evil").

And you are still ignoring most of what I said, so you could then go back to addressing whether god chooses to be good or good is only good because it's what god chooses. Perhaps you could try something other than a meaningless slogan, this time?

I thought i'd answered that. God is goodness, that's why we have a confusing variety of responses against him.
I'm surprised that you should call that response meaningless since you seem to accept that morality is only, in the world we know of,
a human affair. When confronted by a more moral force we react in varying and confused ways.

I think it was Plato who surmised that a perfect man would arouse such personal panic that one response would be to destroy them.

Perhaps you would now like to say why Good being moral good forbids God from being creator etc?

[Stranger]

Suffering is seen in the context of divine restoration of the human and the granting of eternal existence where death and suffering are not the end. Where suffering is in fact a human affair.
Given that death and suffering are not the end we will have passed them in due course although we will always be free to harbour a rage on them.

You appear to be saying god creating evil and suffering is all good really because it doesn't last? Why does god create it at all, for fun?

If you have an alternative take on suffering which doesn't involve blaming God and doesn't deny it's existence present it.

Is this a serious question? Suffering is what happens when things go badly for an individual (either at the hands of others or for other reasons). In a universe without a plan, purpose, or (allegedly good and loving) designer, why would it need any more of an explanation?

I thought i'd answered that. God is goodness, that's why we have a confusing variety of responses against him.

As, I said before, that's a meaningless slogan. What does it mean to say god is goodness? Taken literally, as an equality, that would mean goodness is god. Hence, god would not be a being or creator of the universe but some (according to all the evidence) subjective notion of a class of behaviours.

Moral good is an abstraction, not a thing or a being.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You appear to be saying god creating evil and suffering is all good really because it doesn't last? Why does god create it at all, for fun?

Is this a serious question? Suffering is what happens when things go badly for an individual (either at the hands of others or for other reasons). In a universe without a plan, purpose, or (allegedly good and loving) designer, why would it need any more of an explanation?

As, I said before, that's a meaningless slogan. What does it mean to say god is goodness? Taken literally, as an equality, that would mean goodness is god. Hence, god would not be a being or creator of the universe but some (according to all the evidence) subjective notion of a class of behaviours.

Moral good is an abstraction, not a thing or a being.

I think natural things are going to cause suffering because pain is an indicator that something is not right and therefore has a natural purpose. Let us not forget that God has also given the humans the means of preventing and alleviating suffering but anaestheasia  against everything is not necessarily a good thing.

God is not your normal being, he is not contingent and he is  ultimate. He is not a material thing.

Your problems stem from your inability to think outside a tight philosophical box and dogmatic adherence to relativism.

[Shaker]

No prizes awarded for guessing who's in charge of the Assertatron today

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No prizes awarded for guessing who's in charge of the Assertatron today

You're in charge of the wankatron.....................screenshot that.

[Stranger]

I think natural things are going to cause suffering because pain is an indicator that something is not right and therefore has a natural purpose.

Okay.

Let us not forget that God has also given the humans the means of preventing and alleviating suffering but anaestheasia  against everything is not necessarily a good thing.

This is just avoiding the problem, which is why god (if it exists) created evil, pain and suffering in the first place.

God is not your normal being, he is not contingent and he is  ultimate. He is not a material thing.

So what? You need to explain how that relates to whether it is good or goodness is whatever it decides. Take a look at this:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma

Your problems stem from your inability to think outside a tight philosophical box and dogmatic adherence to relativism.

Your problem is that you have totally failed to provide any answers to these questions. Telling people they are in a "philosophical box" is not a substitute for providing an argument for your position.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Okay.

This is just avoiding the problem, which is why god (if it exists) created evil, pain and suffering in the first place.

So what? You need to explain how that relates to whether it is good or goodness is whatever it decides. Take a look at this:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma

Your problem is that you have totally failed to provide any answers to these questions. Telling people they are in a "philosophical box" is not a substitute for providing an argument for your position.

I have stated what pain does. It is a warning that things have become to be suboptimal.

There is pain and suffering due to one's id not being satisfied but then again that is a warning.

Finally evil. God does not create evil....that is us.

You are in a philosophical box for reasons I have spelled out.
You define goodness as a relative thing rather than an absolute. That is an arbitrary dogmatic choice.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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

The Eutrypho dilemma is only so though if you believe that there is God and there is Good. There is in the argument a false dichotomy.

[Stranger]

I have stated what pain does. It is a warning that things have become to be suboptimal.

There is pain and suffering due to one's id not being satisfied but then again that is a warning.

Why would anything be suboptimal in a universe created by an omnipotent and good god?

Finally evil. God does not create evil....that is us.

This is attempting to explain one logical absurdity with another. As I have pointed out before, free will is a nonsense from the point of view of an omnipotent, omniscient creator. Everything (including our choices) would be as a direct result of its creative actions, unless it introduced a truly element, which would also be its responsibility.

You are in a philosophical box for reasons I have spelled out.
You define goodness as a relative thing rather than an absolute. That is an arbitrary dogmatic choice.

No, it isn't. We observe that "goodness" is an abstraction in people's minds. Apparently a subjective (as not everybody agrees about exactly what is good) one. If you want to argue that it is something else; something external and objective, it is up to you to supply the evidence or reasoning.

The Eutrypho dilemma is only so though if you believe that there is God and there is Good. There is in the argument a false dichotomy.

The "false dichotomy" arguments don't actually make sense. If you make god's nature the standard for good, you are essentially siding with "good is whatever god wants" and rejecting the idea that god chooses to be good. Apart from "might is right" why should we accept god's nature as being the standard?