|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
| Author | Topic: Euthypro Dilemna | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Teapots&unicorns Member (Idle past 4909 days)  Posts: 178 Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Teapots&unicorns Member (Idle past 4909 days) Posts: 178 Joined: |
Maybe this could be in the Faith and Belief section, actually?
I don't know, that just seems to be a better fit. But that's just me  T&U
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Teapots&unicorns Member (Idle past 4909 days) Posts: 178 Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Teapots&unicorns Member (Idle past 4909 days) Posts: 178 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Teapots&unicorns Member (Idle past 4909 days) Posts: 178 Joined: |
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, that means that people need emotional support as a basic resource, as you so succinctly say in the next quote:
So what? It is like needing warmth, food, protection from the elements. Not wanting to suffer.
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')
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.
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?
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.
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?
You are assuming that all people fundamentally desire evil; a position which has no backup evidence.
WHAT logical mistakes am I making?
You are hinging your entire argument on this flawed and judgmental assumption:
WHERE is my reasoning flawed? 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".
Ah, CD, but isn't proof a wonderful thing?
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.
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Teapots&unicorns Member (Idle past 4909 days) Posts: 178 Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Teapots&unicorns Member (Idle past 4909 days) Posts: 178 Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Teapots&unicorns Member (Idle past 4909 days) Posts: 178 Joined: |
Hi Arphy, glad to see a sane religious person who isn't trolling
Let's take this back to the beginning.
Ok. I'm good with that.
In the beginning God was. Then he created beings (angels & people) with a free will. One of them being lucifer.
Fun with the devil! ...Ok, back to the response.
Now as such there is nothing right or wrong with pride (or "glorifying").
Well, I see pride as all right but 'glorifying' just seems to me a step too far. I could see something as praiseworthy and respectable, but in need of glory? Not really. That seems like a Roman Emperor kind of mindset.
Lucifer gave glory to something that did not deserve it (himself).
Why did he not deserve it?Did he stop glorifying God as well? How do you qualify 'deserving'? In that sense it was simply an incorrect thing to do. i.e. it was not the truth.
Then what would be 'the truth' in this situation?
So what is truth? It is not a moral as such. Telling the truth may be moral but as such truth just is. God is truth i.e. his reality is correct. A lie and the truth are always in confrontation just because of what they are. Basically everything immoral (or sin) is this type of conflict.
I kind of get this and kind of not. I understand what you're saying about what is true being moral; however, I just don't feel that it is biconditional.For example, I don't see how 'laws' as layed out in the bible can be 'truthful' or not. This is OT, but take the circumcision of males: how would that be 'truthful'? Take murder for example. There is a conflict because we act as God if we take life. God is the one who gives and takes life.
I was agreeing mostly with you until I got to that last sentence. I believe, as a humanist. that giving something does not give the ability to just as easily take it away. This especially the case when dealing with sentient free-willed creatures: Yes, you gave it to me, so thanks a lot, but could I please get on with what I have to do now? God's murder is the same as any other.
If we show pride and think that we know better than God then this is a lie. It is "incorrect".
How do you know that God is always correct?
If God tells you to kill something then this is not incorrect because everything belongs to God therefore he is the appropriate authourity who can give and take away as he sees fit.
If something belongs to a sentient, thinking individual then it is always wrong to take something of theirs, whether you made them or not. Imagine thinking robots...Yup, I don't think that you would agree with the principle of 'I give and I take away' in that case- a double standard. So in essence sin is wrong because it does not reflect who God is. And because God is truth all sin is essentially a lie.
How do you know God is truth? So morals aren't decided by God or anyone else as such. Rather, they come as extension of what is true as opposed to being a lie.What is truth for you? Is truth universal and objective? Hmm... This is not very easy to understand, but it is not an easy thing to put into words. Will keep on trying to find better ways of saying what I mean, but hope the above is helpful in the meantime.
No problem Arph- happens to the best of us. T&U
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Teapots&unicorns Member (Idle past 4909 days) Posts: 178 Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Teapots&unicorns Member (Idle past 4909 days) Posts: 178 Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024
