Posted on 05/01/2011 7:24:18 AM PDT by Ethan Clive Osgoode
There on those on the right/believers who advocate centralized control, as well as atheists who don't (those who are Libertarians and Objectivists come to mind). I think Robert Heinlein (the greatest science fiction writer in history, IMHO) summed it up best in the following quote:
Political tags - such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth - are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surely curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they make better neighbors than the other sort.
And on that note I'm going to take my leave of this thread. Like virtually every thread on this subject, it's gotten down to the:
"Your God's morals stink!" "He's God! They can't stink by definition!" "What about (inert Bible verse)?" "Job! Besides, what about Stalin? So much for atheist government!" "Oh yeah?" ""Yeah!" stage.
The chance of actually changing someone's mind is a number considerably south of 1%. Ta, all.
You're assigning a value judgment of the alleged actions of a non-existent entity?????
No, I am putting a value judgement on the beliefs and actions of the followers of the non existent entity. Do you believe Allah exists?
Yup. Argument from outrage.
I am not outraged at all, I know what to expect from you.
So the main problem on your part is ignorance, then. Sorry, rabbinical theology is largely a conscious reaction to early Christian theology - hence, what you learned from your rabbi was not only "evolved," but purposefully so. The rabbi is no closer to the original written text than anyone else you can point to - and is indeed likely to be further from it, since he is operating on a theological impulse that was purposefully altered in reaction to early Christian beliefs about the Messiah and the Tanakh.
And the Born Againers beliefs haven't evolved either? No I guess you are right. The Born Againers just magically appeared fifty years ago with the built in ability to know just what GOD meant when GOD wrote the Bible.
First of all, it depends on what your definition of "born againer" is - which is entirely pertinent since, as with many other things, atheists seem not to have a very good grasp of the subtleties of variance within Christianity.
Have you ever considered pondering and thinking about what you read? Never mind, I know the answer, your cognitive dissonance makes that too painful.
Actually, yes. In fact, I ponder and think about what I read far more deeply than you would ever be capable of doing. I am somewhat amused that you think that the only way somebody can show that they've "pondered and thought deeply" about what they read is when they arrive at the same shallow, superficial conclusions that you have.
Since God doesn't exist, there is no reason that I should expect a reason for for a non existent beings behavior. Does Allah explain what he does to you?
The problem for you is that, as a humanist, you have to explain the behaviour of mankind. Since mankind's behaviour is the only standard against which you have to judge the morals or ethics of anything, you therefore fall into the trap of criticising God's morality when the morality of the worldview you hold to is worse, by your own standards, than that attributed to God. After all, you whine about one innocent baby, but secular humanism is directly responsible for the deaths of millions of the same. If nothing else, you're a hypocrite.
To reply to the first part. "He has the morals that He defined." That is the definition of a despot is it not?
Where did anybody claim that God was a democrat?
You are equating torturing and killing an innocent baby to disciplining someone who is capable of understanding their own actions?
What kind of immoral monster do you believe in? What kind of morals do you have?
Too bad there isn't a GOD when I need one : )
To agree with you. I will point out that all Christian morals and teaching is stolen.
Well, the first problem with your argument is that you haven't actually shown how Jehovah "tortured" this baby.
And the second problem is that, again, you have signally failed to actually make the case that anyone *deserved* a long, happy, etc. etc. life. Sure, we'd all *like* that, but what case can you make that anybody necessarily DESERVES it?
In otherwords, stop throwing the contents of your diaper at us, and actually try to make a logical case.
Using your logic and Morals, any Christian can torture and kill anyone, because no one "deserves' a long healthy life?
Um, no.
First, even were we so inclined, the commandment against murder would preclude that, as well as would a significant portion of the theology surrounding the concept of man being the image of God.
Now, lest you be tempted to make the "well God does it" argument, well, no He doesn't, actually. In the Scripture, God actually deals with man in an entirely consistent way that takes into account the principles of both His holiness (as defined by Him, not you) and the fact that man reaps what he sows. David reaped what he sowed - though his infant child actually got off quite lightly, getting to go to heaven and all without having to deal with the typical trials, pains, tribulations, etc. of life.
Second, you're mistaking the "negative" fact that nobody deserves a long and healthy life with the "positive" idea that this then allows us to go out and torture and murder people. This is logically flawed. The mere fact of the one does not necessarily follow to the other.
Again I repeat. I thank God that I am not a Born Againer.
Why do you think we're going to be all broken up about this? Frankly, if I were an atheist, I'd be ashamed to have someone like you making such poor arguments for my side.
Please do yourself a favor and Google Rabbinic Theology before making more more of a fool of yourself.
First of all, it depends on what your definition of "born againer" is - which is entirely pertinent since, as with many other things, atheists seem not to have a very good grasp of the subtleties of variance within Christianity.
Ahh, by setting up a false strawman (that I am ignorant of what Born Againers are, I am not) you have tried to sidestep my argument. Sorry you fail.
After all, you whine about one innocent baby, but secular humanism is directly responsible for the deaths of millions of the same. If nothing else, you're a hypocrite.
I am not a humanist. We have simply been examining your belief that God killed an innocent baby and you call it Moral. I just love watching you squirm and twist in your agony. Actually it is a good sign that all is not lost since you and Metmom know that you are defending the indefensible.
To reply to the first part. "He has the morals that He defined." That is the definition of a despot is it not?
Where did anybody claim that God was a democrat?
Hmm, something that we can agree on? : )
If he is, that just shows how out of the loop he is in philosophical circles.
"It used to be widely held that evil - which for present purposes we may identify with undeserved pain and suffering - was incompatible with the existence of God: that no possible world contained both God and evil. So far as I am able to tell, this thesis is no longer defended." (Peter Van Inwagen, "The Problem of Evil, the Problem of Air, the Problem of Silence," Philosophical Perspectives, Vol. 5, p. 135)
"Atheologians have usually construed this as a deductive argument...However, this approach has generally been regarded as unsuccessful...Because of the failure of deductive arguments from evil, atheologians have developed inductive or probabilistic arguments from evil." (Michael Martin, Atheism: A Philosophical Justification, p. 335)
"Some philosophers have contended that the existence of evil is logically inconsistent with the existence of the theistic God. No one, I think, has succeeded in establishing such an extravagant claim. Indeed, granted incompatibilism, there is a fairly compelling argument for the view that the existence of evil is logically consistent with the existence of the theistic God." (William Rowe, cited in The Evidential Argument from Evil, Ed. Daniel Howard-Snyder, p. 10)
"I agree with most philosophers of religion that theists face no serious logical problem of evil." (Paul Draper, cited in The Evidential Argument from Evil, Ed. Daniel Howard-Snyder, p. 26)
Really, no philosophers, atheist or theist alike, seriously take theodicy as an argument against the existence of God anymore.
Unbelievable. You are attempting to justify God's murdering a child because it saves the child the trials, pains and tribulations of life? That is beyond disgusting.
I think I will open a file for you too Titus, right next to Metmoms file, under child murder.
But the kicker is this: There are two big problems which most people have with religion, that is, evolution, and the problem of evil. The problem of evil is by far the larger; only idiots believe in evolution any more.
The problem of evil has numerous formulations:
All such questions boil down to the question of what the word "omnipotent" is supposed to mean. Does it mean having all the power which anybody could imagine, or does it mean having all the power that there actually is? The one answer leads to conundrums, the other doesn't.
The main key to the thing is Jesus' noting that his kingdom is not of this world (John 18:36).
I interpret that to mean he viewed this world as of limited importance and that for whatever reason, God exercises no power in this world save possibly through us. It's as if he set up the laws of the universe and, once having set them up, obeys them himself.
Very interesting perspective.
Now my faith is really shaken... :)
You sure about that?
To just take one example from relatively recent literature,
"Even Rabbinic theology, in reaction to Christian theology, from which it borrowed its philosophical tools and methods, concentrated on themes dictated by specifically Christian challenges...rabbinic thinkers themselves, understanding Judaism in terms of Christianity, asked what significance a particular place, Palestine, could have in their faith..." (W.D. Davies, "Reflections on Territory in Judaism," Sha'arei Talmon: Studies in the Bible, Qumran, and the Ancient Near East, Ed. Shemaryahu Talmon)
Further, what are we to make of the emphasis that the talmudic sources make of specifically responding to Jesus, usually by calling Him a magician or a deceiver? Nevermind the development in tanaic and talmudic judaism of the dual messiah. I mean, it's like you've never heard of Jacob Neusner or something.
Ahh, by setting up a false strawman (that I am ignorant of what Born Againers are, I am not) you have tried to sidestep my argument. Sorry you fail.
Nice try at getting around it, but sorry - no. You don't actually seem to know what a "born againer" even is - which is unsurprising. The typical atheist is grossly ignorant of even the basics of religion, Christianity or otherwise. I've actually seen atheists refer to Catholics and Mormons as "fundamentalists."
I am not a humanist. We have simply been examining your belief that God killed an innocent baby and you call it Moral. I just love watching you squirm and twist in your agony. Actually it is a good sign that all is not lost since you and Metmom know that you are defending the indefensible.
Well, what you're actually doing is failing signally to actually make your case.
Why do you think God killing David's child is immoral? I mean, not just a re-statement of your belief that it is, but an actual thought-out argument for this.
Also, you have yet to respond to the point that the death of the child was neither "torture," nor even necessarily detrimental to the child, when compared with what a full life filled with the typical pain and suffering that living in the ANE might well bring to a person. How do you know that the child wasn't actually saved from a lifetime of suffering, most of it likely to have been caused by his fellow human beings?
Because evil serves the purposes of God.
God was not surprised at either satan or Adam's fall.
And yes, God has taken responsibility for evil in the world through the completed work of Jesus Christ.
That's fine - that's your opinion, based upon an illogical "argument from outrage."
I think the reason you're ducking this question is because you know you can't answer it. You know that when you get right down to it, the only response to the argument that the action was moral "because God said so" is your own belief that "I said it isn't." You have no rational basis for arguing against it, just your opinion - which you apparently can't defend, which means no more or no less than anyone else's.
Sorry, but the fact remains that God can deal with His creations however He chooses - regardless of what your opinion on the matter is.
Without an objective standard, outside of human definition, there can be no right or wrong, moral or immoral,
there can just be opinions.
When any postmodernist tries to say that one standard (or opinion) is “better” than another, they are appealing to an objective standard, and then must define who/what determines that objective standard.
If that works for you that’s good, it doesn’t work for me. The idea of a supposedly omnipotent and well-meaning God allowing millions of children to die of malaria doesn’t pass any sort of a basic sniff test for logic. The conclusion I come to is that God is in fact omnipotent within his own realm, but has limited if any power to act in this physical realm which we are in.
The Golden Rule suffices.
Do not do unto others what you do not want done unto you.
This rule is older than any religion.
So, where does the “Golden Rule” come from?
A majority opinion is still an opinion,
and carries no more weight than any other human derived opinion, it’s simply a logical fallacy to appeal to the majority, just like “most scientists believe in man made global warming”.
I’m sure that at some point in history, the majority determined/agreed on something that we’d find immoral today.
Who’s “right”?
How much of the entire amount of “things to know” in the entire universe do you think you have a clear grasp of?
And in the remaining part, could there be possibly something that you don’t know that might “justify” any example of “evil” that you can come up with?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.