Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 7/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Euthypro Dilemna
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 16 of 181 (537572)
11-29-2009 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by purpledawn
11-29-2009 11:43 AM


Re: Authority for Morals
Gods are the personification of nature. That personification took on a life of its own in some religions.
You're a literalist, so let me ask: where does it say this in the bible? (I don't mean this facetiously, I admittely have not read the bible cover to cover)
IMO, the OP was referring to the bible MOST christians read and adhere to. I am feeling like we are deviating from "the norm" (this IS an evolution vs. CREATIONISM site, so I assume fundy christianity is the main topic at hand). Not too many fundimental christians have this belief in god, one that god is just a force. God is normally portrayed as a figure.
Now, I'm not saying you are incorrect, but for the topic at hand, I don't think it is the correct way to view the subject. Note what I replied to Stile, this is similar to my way of thinking.
Who rules, man or nature?
Again, same problem. If you are saying god is nothing more than a force of nature, I have no qualms. However, the god of the bible is more than a force of nature. How else would he show himself to Moses? That implies a figure.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by purpledawn, posted 11-29-2009 11:43 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by purpledawn, posted 11-29-2009 2:27 PM hooah212002 has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 17 of 181 (537592)
11-29-2009 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by hooah212002
11-29-2009 12:13 PM


Re: Authority for Morals
quote:
IMO, the OP was referring to the bible MOST christians read and adhere to.
Which is why I asked if I could babble until the theists got here. I'm looking at it a different way. Once the theists pop in you'll get the usual answers you're looking for and I'll go silent and monitor.

Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by hooah212002, posted 11-29-2009 12:13 PM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by hooah212002, posted 11-29-2009 3:03 PM purpledawn has not replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 18 of 181 (537601)
11-29-2009 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by purpledawn
11-29-2009 2:27 PM


Re: Authority for Morals
Oops. Sorry, I forgot that part of your first post. Disregard.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by purpledawn, posted 11-29-2009 2:27 PM purpledawn has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 19 of 181 (537613)
11-29-2009 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by DevilsAdvocate
11-28-2009 11:15 PM


iano writes:
Fortunately, the God of Christianity predates Plato by a decent amount. And He is the same, yesterday, today and tomorrow.
Devils Advocate writes:
And that was it, on the subject of the Plato's Euthyphro Dilemma.
Yet the post where you cut this from contains the substance of my response to this supposed dilemma.
Devils Advocate If God commands what is ‘good’ because it is good in of itself, then he bases his decision on what to command on what is already morally good outside of himself..
iano writes:
Firstly, I've changed your word 'wills' to the italicisd word 'command' three lines up so as to accurately reflect the conundrum.. (snip)
Secondly, how do you conclude that his expressing outward to us what is good (by way of information) necessitates that good being/existing outside/apart from himself. I mean, if goodness is sourced within God and he tells us about it...
Thirdly, if God is the source of good then we can say 'it is good because it is commanded by God' as a matter of logical conclusion.
Perhaps I'm just not understanding the conundrum correctly in order to see what the dilemma is. The above seems to resolve things easily enough. Your set up of things, DA, was clearly expressed whereas T&U's version seems a bit wooly and loose in comparison (no offence) so I won't go into that version of it here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 11-28-2009 11:15 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Teapots&unicorns, posted 11-29-2009 9:14 PM iano has seen this message but not replied
 Message 22 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 11-30-2009 1:24 AM iano has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(2)
Message 20 of 181 (537616)
11-29-2009 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by hooah212002
11-29-2009 11:13 AM


Abrahamic God is not Perfect
Please disregard the following post. I got confused with what hooah212002 said and made a boo-boo. I'm arguing a straw-man here, this isn't what he was talking about.
Actually, read on, I shall leave my shame here for all to see!
(hooah212002 was talking about God not answering to anyone, not God being perfect). In response to that I completely agree with Him that anyone who believes in the Abrahamic God certainly has a dilemma to consider.)
---------------------
hooah212002 writes:
If god answers to ANYONE at all, he isn't the abrahamic lord of all as depicted in the bible. This depiction you stated creates your own personal god.
Funny. I'd say that if you actually think God is perfect, then it is you who isn't thinking of the Abrahamic Lord and have created your own personal God. Have you read the Bible? The old testament is full of God making mistakes and rash decisions. The new testament contains a more thoughtful and spiritual-related God, but still far from perfect.
The thought of a perfect God is nothing more than immature religious leaders running away with a My Dad is Bigger Than Your Dad complex.
"Perfect" is such a subjective term that it's impossible to meet anyway. Perfect in what? I guarantee you that a God you think is perfect is not a God that I will find perfect or a God that many other people will find perfect. The idea of a perfect God is so obviously immature and human-created, I can't believe so many people actually take it seriously.
If you think a perfect God can make perfect choices, please provide a situation from the Bible (or anywhere else that is attributed to God) where you think God made a perfect move. I guarantee you that I can think of some other thing God could have done that would have been "better."
Edited by Stile, : Whoops, got carried away My apologies to hooah212002

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by hooah212002, posted 11-29-2009 11:13 AM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

  
Teapots&unicorns
Member (Idle past 4887 days)
Posts: 178
Joined: 06-23-2009


Message 21 of 181 (537635)
11-29-2009 9:14 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by iano
11-29-2009 4:52 PM


Hi iano,
Perhaps I'm just not understanding the conundrum correctly in order to see what the dilemma is. The above seems to resolve things easily enough.
Well, iano, all that we're saying is that Euthypro's dilemna merely shows that objective morality cannot come from God. If it's good because God says so, then he could change his mind. If God says so because it's good, then you don't need God as the source of morality and he is as such demoted to a mere messenger.
Your set up of things, DA, was clearly expressed whereas T&U's version seems a bit wooly and loose in comparison (no offence) so I won't go into that version of it here.
No offence taken iano.
However, I would like to know: How is mine 'wooly?' I'd appreciate it if you told me. (Just so I can better myself for the sake of utterly destroying you all )
Later- got a veeeeerrryy long paper to write due tomorrow (deadlines, schmedlines).
T&U
Edited by Teapots&unicorns, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by iano, posted 11-29-2009 4:52 PM iano has seen this message but not replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 22 of 181 (537644)
11-30-2009 1:24 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by iano
11-29-2009 4:52 PM


Perhaps I'm just not understanding the conundrum correctly in order to see what the dilemma is. The above seems to resolve things easily enough. Your set up of things, DA, was clearly expressed whereas T&U's version seems a bit wooly and loose in comparison (no offence) so I won't go into that version of it here
Ok, I mispoke, you did address some of what I wrote but we got off track on the whole dilemma. So I will go back and readdress your post from my previous thread about the Euthypro Dilemma:
Iano writes:
Me writes:
If God commands what is ‘good’ because it is good in of itself, then he bases his decision on what to command on what is already morally good outside of himself..
Firstly, I've changed your word 'wills' to the italicisd word 'command' three lines up so as to accurately reflect the conundrum..
So are you admitting that God does not dictate what is good but only wills (wants/desires/wishes) what is good? If so than that means he is not the ultimate source of what is good. Or are using some other obscure meaning for the word 'will'.
Iano writes:
Secondly, how do you conclude that his expressing outward to us what is good (by way of information) necessitates that good being/existing outside/apart from himself. I mean, if goodness is sourced within God and he tells us about it...
But if God is the source of goodness i.e. God=good, we in essense have no basis to determine what is good and what is not good. We can only determine in essense what is "from God" and what is "not from God". This in essense proves the second horn of this dillema in that we have no way of determining if God is good or not, instead we have to rely 100% on blind faith that everything God is telling us is correct and "good" with no real way of verifying this to be true. Furthermore, goodness would then be completely arbitrary and merely based on God's whim and capriciousness. And no, you cannot say that he is not evil because you have no outside standard to hold him to. To do otherwise would be arguing in circles.
Based on this, the only standard you could hold God to would be whether he was consistent or not, not whether he is good or not since by definition God=good. So the entire concept of goodness becomes moot and undefinable using this reasoning.
Furthermore if God choose it good to enslave people, murdering children, ethnicide and other attrocities, using your reasoning you would have no ground to stand on to say otherwise and indeed these actions and behaviors are directly attributed to your God in the Bible.
Therefore calling God good is equivolant to calling God "God" and does nothing to show why God is good since goodness does not exist apart from God. It is circular reasoning.
Thirdly, if God is the source of good then we can say 'it is good because it is commanded by God' as a matter of logical conclusion.
This is not a logical conclusion as you have no moral frame of reference to determine if God is good as explained above. To define a term by itself amounts to circular reasoning.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection
"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan
"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by iano, posted 11-29-2009 4:52 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by iano, posted 11-30-2009 7:13 AM DevilsAdvocate has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 23 of 181 (537673)
11-30-2009 7:13 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by DevilsAdvocate
11-30-2009 1:24 AM


Devils Advocate writes:
So are you admitting that God does not dictate what is good but only wills (wants/desires/wishes) what is good? If so than that means he is not the ultimate source of what is good. Or are using some other obscure meaning for the word 'will'.
You originally wrote this below and it might be best if I deal with it as written
quote:
If God wills what is ‘good’ because it is good in of itself, then he bases his decision on what to command on what is already morally good outside of himself.. If moral goodness exists before God issues any commands, then moral goodness is independent of God’s commands. Therefore God’s commands aren’t the source of morality, but merely a source of information about a preexisting moral code.
My understanding of God willing something is that it will happen. God can also want something to happen - but his wanting it doesn't mean it will happen. For example: God wanting that none should perish doesn't mean none will perish. Some will perish, even though God doesn't want that they do.
The second thing to say is that God is good. Or to put it another way: the definition of good is that which God is and does. Which also means he is the source and cause of goodness. Which appears to lead me to..
But if God is the source of goodness i.e. God=good, we in essense have no basis to determine what is good and what is not good. We can only determine in essense what is "from God" and what is "not from God".
I'm not quite sure what you mean here. IF God is the source of goodness THEN he is the basis against which we measure. IF he is not THEN he is not. You cannot suppose God the standard in one breath (the IF condition in your statement assumed true) then state that you have no standard available, in the other.
You seem to be saying that if God is indeed the source of good then we have no other standard by which to measure him to find out whether he is indeed good or not. Which is a nonsense: the nature of standards is to be definitional. We either accept the definition they posit or we don't. You don't 'prove' definitions as such.
-
This in essence proves the second horn of this dillema in that we have no way of determining if God is good or not, instead we have to rely 100% on blind faith that everything God is telling us is correct and "good" with no real way of verifying this to be true.
I think I'm seeing the point(lessness) of this dilemma. What you are saying is that we aren't God. And because we are not, we cannot pull ourselves to the absolute height (independant from God) to know what is true - including whether God is good.
It seems we are limited to experiencing what is true by virtue of alignment with Gods view of things: I view greed as evil because he views greed as evil.
Is greed actually evil though? Who cares: evil is merely a word to describe acting greedily. And greed just a word to describe acting in a way which puts your own interests over others to excessive degrees. And excessive...
God uses the word "good" to describe things that are experienced in a 'positive' sense: patience, kindness, love, joy, peace. If someone else wants to use the word "evil" to describe those same experiences then so what?
-
Furthermore, goodness would then be completely arbitrary and merely based on God's whim and capriciousness. And no, you cannot say that he is not evil because you have no outside standard to hold him to. To do otherwise would be arguing in circles.
As pointed out, I prefer to steer clear of definitional jousting due to its pointlessness. Better to consider what God does and examine it in the light of what mankind generally considers good/evil. It's not an absolute measure of anything - but might give us enough to get an inkling into any harmony that might exist between mans version of goodness and Gods version of goodness.
That loose standard of ours (which would find whimsy and capriciousness bad) shouldn't find God guilty of these things although...
-
Based on this, the only standard you could hold God to would be whether he was consistent or not, not whether he is good or not since by definition God=good. So the entire concept of goodness becomes moot and undefinable using this reasoning.
...examining consistancy would require our insight into all issues that were involved in God acting this way or that at a particular time. We might agree globally that he is consistantly hating of sin however. And consistantly exercising a degree of patience with sinners.
-
Furthermore if God choose it good to enslave people, murdering children, ethnicide and other attrocities, using your reasoning you would have no ground to stand on to say otherwise and indeed these actions and behaviors are directly attributed to your God in the Bible.
Ah...but my arguing for Gods goodness uses the only other standard we have available to use: the shaky, flaky but nonetheless useful standard of man made in the image of God. And that argument/standard frequently finds arguments against God flailing .. after a while.
For example: stealing is considered wrong because we are taking something that doesn't belong to us. God cannot steal because everything belongs to him - including our lives. This latter deals with all the above hyperbole in that God cannot murder (which is a law from God governing mans dealing with another mans life (which isn't the first mans property) - not Gods dealing with mans' life (which is God's property).
-
Therefore calling God good is equivolant to calling God "God" and does nothing to show why God is good since goodness does not exist apart from God. It is circular reasoning.
Definitions are, like I say, circular. As to arguments? Well the above stealing/murder argument is a start. And I find nothing evil in God killing - not according to any standard that men can correctly apply to the issue.
-
It just occurs to me that whilst the unbeliever has no way to establish absolutely whether God is good (and can at best only apply the common standard of man as honestly as he can) the believer is in a different position.
The believer has direct access to God - in the sense that God can reveal His view of things to the believer and so the believer can see things from Gods perspective and so become part of the Absolute view on goodness/evil. Again, we are dealing with definitions only - but given that I'll spend eternity in what is definitionally described as bliss, I'm not supposing to argue with definitions.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 11-30-2009 1:24 AM DevilsAdvocate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 12-04-2009 5:51 PM iano has replied

  
AChristianDarkly
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 181 (537720)
11-30-2009 2:54 PM


The Rationality of Evil
I am not sure about inter-forum decorum: so this may be out of line.
I discovered ‘Bot Verification’, and posted in ‘Misc\Did God Create Evil.’
I got a little bit (Ok, quite a bit) carried away speaking my mind, and I got banned. (And everything was deleted.) I also got called new age, which was a brand new experience for me. (Fanatic and Heretic I’ve gotten used to, and rather fond of.)
I do not claim that what follows is original: I am very certain it is not. I do not know who to credit for it however. This is just something I’ve known to be true for most of my life.
Oddly the anti-reaction I got from the Pretty People was far more intense than that from the Blind Ones. Who knows. Go figure.
=
First off: I find the dilemma quite silly. I find philosophy silly, in general: arguing about un-real definitions seems to be a pointless way to spend time.
This time I do have more of a ‘why’ however: a short rehash of what I posted before.
=
Since a given person is not actually connected to any other, no other person matters to the given person except the given person.
Consequently, simply being ‘reasonable’ directly implies most of what is considered as being evil, as being the ‘rational’ thing to do/be: stealing, murder, rape, etc. (Taking into consideration such things as pain, pleasure, power, individual desires, etc. etc.)
Well, this does not seem like just an idea to me: obvious fact is more like it. Still, if atheists are in general incapable of admitting the influence of the conviction of the truth of ToE on their choices, then obviously there is no ‘obviously.’ (The Blind will die in their blindness. Whoo, creepy!)
Note: I am not espousing thing as some kind of ‘religious viewpoint.’ I simply mean it as I have tried to simply state it. No more. No less.
For me the interesting implications are how the ‘reality-of-God’ aspect of some-of-us nut-balls mixes with this idea. (This aspect will of course matter not in the least to the rest of you: but is why I bothered to post on EFT in the first place. Silly of me.)
Put another way: unless this ‘reasonableness’ gets trumped by something very direct, evil is the way to go. Which is why Vulcans are therefore definitely, thankfully, fictional... ;-)
The problem with most of those on this forum, of course, is that there is no way on earth you can all admit that being a -rational- atheist directly implies being a demoniac. I might be mistaken. (Personally, it didn’t bother me before. It doesn’t bother me now. What is, is.)
For an atheist to be nice, would require the abandonment of reason. A choice. (Or perhaps rather an aspect of pride?) In this, at least, the religious idiot would be at an advantage. Neener.
The point I am trying to make is simple. If you look into yourself: rationally, am I wrong? Are we not, each and every one, commanded by the dictates of reason to walk a path named ‘Evil’?
A lot can follow from this. For example: God is good because He is perfectly immune to everything. He can choose to be good, simply by virtue of raw power. No fluffy concepts required.
=
Note. I am not a sociopath. I am not describing sociopathy. Sociopaths are not what they are because they are eminently ‘reasonable.’ They are incapable of actual empathy. That is a mental defect. Not reason.
=
That’s my 20 cents.

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Stile, posted 11-30-2009 3:51 PM AChristianDarkly has replied
 Message 26 by hooah212002, posted 11-30-2009 4:08 PM AChristianDarkly has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 25 of 181 (537728)
11-30-2009 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by AChristianDarkly
11-30-2009 2:54 PM


Upon a shaky foundation
Your entire arguement begins and depends upon this statement:
AChristianDarkly writes:
Since a given person is not actually connected to any other, no other person matters to the given person except the given person.
...which is incorrect. Unless you can explain why this must be so?
I am a given person, I am not actually connected to any other, yet plenty of other people "matter" to me. I do not understand why you think other people don't matter?
Whether other people matter or not is a subjective decision we all must make.
Some religious people only think other people matter because some deity tells them that it should be so. Personally, I find such a moral basis to be horriffic and kinda smelly.
I am quite capable of making the subjective decision that other people matter on my own. Although it can be explained through instinctual grounds (survival of the group is good for the individual...), such an explanation is unnecessary. I am intelligent enough to make this subjective decision on my own. I subjectively choose to have other people "matter" because that's what I want.
Really, that's all that's required.
Besides, if someone doesn't want other people to matter, then I don't want to live with them as a neighboor. That's why we've created laws and jails and police and such.
Unless you can show how your above statement must be true, your arguement is a failure. And kind of a scary statement about your own morality. I think I'll have the police keep a close eye on you if you don't think other people matter.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by AChristianDarkly, posted 11-30-2009 2:54 PM AChristianDarkly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by AChristianDarkly, posted 11-30-2009 5:57 PM Stile has replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 26 of 181 (537731)
11-30-2009 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by AChristianDarkly
11-30-2009 2:54 PM


Re: The Rationality of Evil
Consequently, simply being ‘reasonable’ directly implies most of what is considered as being evil, as being the ‘rational’ thing to do/be: stealing, murder, rape, etc.
so, rationality equates evilness. check.
Still, if atheists are in general incapable of admitting the influence of the conviction of the truth of ToE on their choices.
No more than the theory of relativity does. The TOE is a section of science. It is a study, not a beleif. What about science scares you twits?
The problem with most of those on this forum, of course, is that there is no way on earth you can all admit that being a -rational- atheist directly implies being a demoniac.
Seriously?
rationally, am I wrong?
Yes
Are we not, each and every one, commanded by the dictates of reason to walk a path named ‘Evil’?
no, only you christians. The rest of us are just fine. We are only classified as such by :GASP: christians.
Note. I am not a sociopath.
I really question the validity of that statement.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by AChristianDarkly, posted 11-30-2009 2:54 PM AChristianDarkly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by AChristianDarkly, posted 11-30-2009 6:27 PM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

  
AChristianDarkly
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 181 (537741)
11-30-2009 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Stile
11-30-2009 3:51 PM


Re: Upon a shaky foundation
Sigh. I got this "you are a foul little evil thing" previously as well. Smelly. Police. I had hoped for a higher level of comprehension. Silly me. Perhaps all irrational fanatics are equally blind, no matter their root-ideology.
As you wish.
You know, people do need other people, emotionally.
So what?
It is like needing warmth, food, protection from the elements. Not wanting to suffer.
So what? HOW does that invalidate my point? Mmmm?
Do you stay with your loved ones PERFECTLY PURELY for their benefit? No. If your wife became sufficient of a burden, would you leave her? Yes. If not, increase the level of pain. Until you leave her. Easy.
YOU are hardwired to matter most to YOU. (This is something of an extension of the original 'argument'... it is different matter altogether, perhaps.)
Sigh. You know, trying to respond to your post really does complicate what is actually a very simple thing to realize. Still, I imagine that you need to complicate things in general, so that you can ignore them more easily. Let me emulate the Lord, and help you in your desire.
Smelly? {Insert bannable insult here.}
The reality of God is a completely different point from this one. One I find interesting. One people like you could not care less about. That is your choice. Kindly do not confuse me with the soulless, mindless, stupid, 'churchies'. I hate/despise them more than you could hope to. You do not care about this subject. I do. So spare me your vapidity. You, those like you, the accursed churchies, know nothing about this. By choice. (At the very best you may have some sob-story. About how you approached the matter thoroughly incorrectly. And suffered for it. Boo hoo.)
More to the point, however, is that that by no means affects the truthfulness/factualness/whatever of the observation & lines of reason that flow from it. So why not just drop this angle?
Why must it be anything? Does a rock have to be anything. Your clothing perhaps? Your toes? YOU?
It is simply a fact. An observation, with logical/rational consequences. I will not be repeating this endlessly. Try reading the first post again. "I simply mean it as I have tried to simply state it. No more. No less." Get it yet?
So. HOW am I incorrect?
WHAT logical mistakes am I making?
WHERE is my reasoning flawed?
Ah. But those are hard to answer. Rather try and convince me to "must".
No. If you do not want to look and see what you are, then that is your choice.
Group survival. Laws. External to you and COMPLETELY irrelevant to the point.
Yes. I also choose/want to care about people. My point is that such a decision is irrational. On your part. That is where the point I am making, to you, ends.
You can either be irrational and not demoniac. Or rational and demoniac. As an atheist, these are your options.
Lastly. Again. This is not an 'argument.' It is not philosophy. It is about what is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Stile, posted 11-30-2009 3:51 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Teapots&unicorns, posted 11-30-2009 6:33 PM AChristianDarkly has not replied
 Message 35 by Stile, posted 12-01-2009 8:46 AM AChristianDarkly has replied

  
AChristianDarkly
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 181 (537750)
11-30-2009 6:27 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by hooah212002
11-30-2009 4:08 PM


Re: The Rationality of Evil
Your crap does not deserve a response. But I'm giving you one anyway. It is the evil thing to do, after all.
Did I say that ToE is not science? (I seriously doubt that it is, and with ClimateGate you have lost that good-old call-to-scientific-consensus pseudo-argument. It is dead. Like Elvis. I wonder if any of you realize, yet, just how much that single loss is going to re-shape your worlds? No more screaming for mommy. The bitch is dead. Mmmm. Maybe I should write up a little something.) But what does that have to do with what I said? Re-read what I wrote, if you want: perhaps it will come to you second time around.
Ah. I am wrong.
Why.
Please do not answer: I am merely pointing out that words are dribbling, uncontrollably, from one of your orifices.
Let me emulate you for a moment:
You are a bee!
You are a sand-weevil!
You are a twit!
You are green!
(Wow. I felt like a real idiot!)
"no, only you christians..."
You really are locked into label-gunning-mode, aren't you. I am not trying to 'argue' that you are evil and must turn to Jesus. I do not care. Die and go to Hell for all I care. Really. As I sit here before the Lord, I do not care if you drop dead, right now, and go to Hell. Burn, fool! Happy?
I am trying to make the point that EVERYONE is evil: humans, devils, angels. (Quite probably the Holy Spirit, and Jesus too. Father is the apex Power: He alone can 'decide' to be good. Or change His mind. It is good to be God...)
My point is clear and simple. (I hope, anyway.)
Like the other guy, you seem to not want to grasp a relatively simple point.
If you lack the ability to read and comprehend, then that is your problem.
=
Have you met any sociopaths? While knowing a little bit about them, enough to recognize the breed? I'm guessing a big no. You are a more likely candidate than me, Timmy dearest.
=
Since you said absolutely nothing of consequence, I would ask that you please upgrade your future posts to better reflect this goal of yours.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by hooah212002, posted 11-30-2009 4:08 PM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Teapots&unicorns, posted 11-30-2009 6:47 PM AChristianDarkly has replied

  
Teapots&unicorns
Member (Idle past 4887 days)
Posts: 178
Joined: 06-23-2009


Message 29 of 181 (537753)
11-30-2009 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by AChristianDarkly
11-30-2009 5:57 PM


Re: Upon a shaky foundation
Hi Darkly,
Sigh. I got this "you are a foul little evil thing" previously as well. Smelly. Police. I had hoped for a higher level of comprehension. Silly me. Perhaps all irrational fanatics are equally blind, no matter their root-ideology.
Well, if you feel that you've gotten this kind of response, then I'm sorry about that. We shouldn't have to worry about ad hominem in a supposedly debate site.
However, I don't feel that you been insulted as such. If someone came up to you and said that they enjoy murder, then would you not feel that it was wrong and most likely disgusting as well? I doubt that anyone here is looking at it from that extreme an angle, but please: look at it from the other's perspective and then stop crying about it. If there's something wrong with the argument, point it out and get along with your life (in other words, your post- that's the only life most of us have here anyway )
You know, people do need other people, emotionally.
So what?
SO, that means that people need emotional support as a basic resource, as you so succinctly say in the next quote:
It is like needing warmth, food, protection from the elements. Not wanting to suffer.
So what? HOW does that invalidate my point? Mmmm?
CD, your point was that all people want to do evil at a basic level. Needing emotional support invalidates that (unless you consider relationships 'evil')
Do you stay with your loved ones PERFECTLY PURELY for their benefit? No. If your wife became sufficient of a burden, would you leave her? Yes. If not, increase the level of pain. Until you leave her. Easy.
If this is the way you really think, CD, then I would really question your basic morality. I personally hold the view that people stay with their loved ones for their own benefits. It's a little like Dawkin's The Selfish Gene: Altruism can actually be a very powerful force for survival and prospering. We fundamentally 'need' each other, and by staying with each other for as long as possible, we satisfy that need. In addition, the other person gets the bonus of having their emotional need as well as possibly their well-being and social needs.
YOU are hardwired to matter most to YOU. (This is something of an extension of the original 'argument'... it is different matter altogether, perhaps.)
See above. Helping others DOES help you greatly.
Sigh. You know, trying to respond to your post really does complicate what is actually a very simple thing to realize. Still, I imagine that you need to complicate things in general, so that you can ignore them more easily. Let me emulate the Lord, and help you in your desire.
I'm sure you'll find that difficult as he's not really the Lord- he's just a naughty little boy.
Also, please no patronizing. If you've got something to say, just say it; no preaching or God-emulating required.
Smelly? {Insert bannable insult here.}
You know, that is such a stereotypical insult. How about:
ahfdjfpokp?
The reality of God is a completely different point from this one.
Really? What is that reality? (I've heard it from multitudes of Christians but they never quite agreed :rolleyes
One I find interesting. One people like you could not care less about. That is your choice.
We don't care about the truth? Wow, if you believe that, I've got some nice Montana beach real-estate...
But in all seriousness, do not label anyone who disagrees with you as uncaring. It's descending and labels you as an unfair stereotyper.
Kindly do not confuse me with the soulless, mindless, stupid, 'churchies'. I hate/despise them more than you could hope to.
You hate those 'churches'? More than us?
Well, okay; most of us don't 'hate' them; we just want them to get their asses out of science and politics.
You do not care about this subject.
Heh, cute. You think that we actually don't care? Oh, then why are we on this site? Why are we all so concerned about our people growing up without fear or superstition?
I do.
You're not the only one, buddy. Try to give people a chance before attacking them.
So spare me your vapidity.
Oh, boo-hoo, CD. Get over yourself. You actually have to accept that you are not the only one who 'cares' and knows anything; that is unbelievably condescending, not to mention undeniably incorrect.
You, those like you, the accursed churchies, know nothing about this. By choice. (At the very best you may have some sob-story. About how you approached the matter thoroughly incorrectly. And suffered for it. Boo hoo.)
CD, I am serious. Cut it out now before someone else gets annoyed. I will go to a mod if you continue this.
More to the point, however, is that that by no means affects the truthfulness/factualness/whatever of the observation & lines of reason that flow from it. So why not just drop this angle?
What angle? I see no one arguing this kind of thing here but you.
Ah, that angle. Very well; provide facts that prove people will always desire evil and suffering of others and then we'll talk. Otherwise, please cease your complaining.
Why must it be anything? Does a rock have to be anything. Your clothing perhaps? Your toes? YOU?
It is simply a fact. An observation, with logical/rational consequences. I will not be repeating this endlessly. Try reading the first post again. "I simply mean it as I have tried to simply state it. No more. No less." Get it yet?
All right; where is the evidence that people desire to do evil as an innate want or need? Please, give us some; I find the fact that so many Christians believe this fascinating.
So. HOW am I incorrect?
You are assuming that all people fundamentally desire evil; a position which has no backup evidence.
WHAT logical mistakes am I making?
WHERE is my reasoning flawed?
You are hinging your entire argument on this flawed and judgmental assumption:
For an atheist to be nice, would require the abandonment of reason. A choice.
Prove it, and then we'll talk.
Ah. But those are hard to answer. Rather try and convince me to "must".
No. If you do not want to look and see what you are, then that is your choice.
Ah, CD, but isn't proof a wonderful thing?
Group survival. Laws. External to you and COMPLETELY irrelevant to the point.
Well yes, of course they are irrelevant; I have seen no mention of these ideas before you brought them up.
Yes. I also choose/want to care about people. My point is that such a decision is irrational. On your part. That is where the point I am making, to you, ends.
How is caring about others irrational if it pays off? You said it yourself that all people desire emotional connections; why are you so surprised that we point your own points to you?
Lastly. Again. This is not an 'argument.' It is not philosophy. It is about what is.
Ah, the 'truthful' argument: the one where it cannot be disagreed with because it is fundamentally and consistently truth.
Give us proof.
Come on, it's not that hard.
If you want to get back to the topic at hand, then please, by all means do so. If you want to continue finger pointing, however, then please stop trolling. I'm sure we'd all appreciate it.
T&U

I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
- Stephen Roberts
I'm a polyatheist - there are many gods I don't believe in
- Dan Foutes
"In the beginning, the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has widely been considered as a bad move."
- Douglas Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by AChristianDarkly, posted 11-30-2009 5:57 PM AChristianDarkly has not replied

  
Teapots&unicorns
Member (Idle past 4887 days)
Posts: 178
Joined: 06-23-2009


Message 30 of 181 (537756)
11-30-2009 6:47 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by AChristianDarkly
11-30-2009 6:27 PM


Re: The Rationality of Evil
More crazy mudslinging.
Did I say that ToE is not science? (I seriously doubt that it is, and with ClimateGate you have lost that good-old call-to-scientific-consensus pseudo-argument. It is dead. Like Elvis. I wonder if any of you realize, yet, just how much that single loss is going to re-shape your worlds? No more screaming for mommy. The bitch is dead. Mmmm. Maybe I should write up a little something.) But what does that have to do with what I said? Re-read what I wrote, if you want: perhaps it will come to you second time around.
Ignoring your crazy ramblings for a second, I'd just like to ask you this: Why do you call ToE 'unscientific' if >99% of scientists 'believe' in it?
We have all read what you wrote. It makes no sense and is judgmental and condescending.
Ah. I am wrong.
Why.
Please do not answer: I am merely pointing out that words are dribbling, uncontrollably, from one of your orifices.
Let me emulate you for a moment:
You are a bee!
You are a sand-weevil!
You are a twit!
You are green!
(Wow. I felt like a real idiot!)
Indeed.
Please stop trolling.
If you wish to debate, then do so.
Otherwise, feel ready to be ignored.
"no, only you christians..."
You really are locked into label-gunning-mode, aren't you. I am not trying to 'argue' that you are evil and must turn to Jesus. I do not care. Die and go to Hell for all I care. Really. As I sit here before the Lord, I do not care if you drop dead, right now, and go to Hell. Burn, fool! Happy?
Wonderful! So you Christians really don't care about other's suffering. Fascinating.
What hooah was trying to say was that only Christians view humanity as inherently sinful and detestable. He was not trying to allow you to proselytize. Please stop trolling.
I am trying to make the point that EVERYONE is evil: humans, devils, angels. (Quite probably the Holy Spirit, and Jesus too. Father is the apex Power: He alone can 'decide' to be good. Or change His mind. It is good to be God...)
You have not answered the OP. What is 'good'?
You cannot say 'God' because this would involve the removal of his free will, which in fact you have explicitly denied in the context of God's 'decision.'
All you are doing is arguing from both authority and power- both logical fallacies. Please try to speak reasonably.
My point is clear and simple. (I hope, anyway.)
Like the other guy, you seem to not want to grasp a relatively simple point.
If you lack the ability to read and comprehend, then that is your problem.
Your answer is convoluted and lacks proof and substance.
You are the one who is attacking straw men.
You are the only one directly attacking every other reasonable poster on this thread.
Have you met any sociopaths? While knowing a little bit about them, enough to recognize the breed? I'm guessing a big no. You are a more likely candidate than me, Timmy dearest.
I'm sure that anyone would be able to identify someone who so obviously lacked any form of concern for another.
Since you said absolutely nothing of consequence, I would ask that you please upgrade your future posts to better reflect this goal of yours.
Tu Quoque.
One last thing to everyone:
DO NOT FEED THE TROLL!!
T&U

I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
- Stephen Roberts
I'm a polyatheist - there are many gods I don't believe in
- Dan Foutes
"In the beginning, the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has widely been considered as a bad move."
- Douglas Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by AChristianDarkly, posted 11-30-2009 6:27 PM AChristianDarkly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by hooah212002, posted 11-30-2009 7:40 PM Teapots&unicorns has replied
 Message 36 by AChristianDarkly, posted 12-01-2009 3:16 PM Teapots&unicorns has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024