Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8897 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-18-2019 3:59 PM
130 online now:
1.61803, AZPaul3, kjsimons, Meddle, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Phat (AdminPhat), ringo, Tangle (9 members, 121 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,434 Year: 3,471/19,786 Month: 466/1,087 Week: 56/212 Day: 17/39 Hour: 4/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1617
18
19202122Next
Author Topic:   Moral high ground
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 256 of 318 (646172)
01-03-2012 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 255 by Butterflytyrant
01-03-2012 2:32 PM


Oh, i recognise what you did there.
Why i did not get it the first time is that the connections you are makong are imaginary.

Not logical.

You're the one who provided the equivalencies...

Why is man doing the will of god not equal to god doing the will of god?

Because its man doing it not god doing it

If god wants to kill little jimmy, so he kills little jimmy or God wants to kill little jimmy, so he gets Stanley to kill little jimmy, then they are equal.

Little Jimmy is dead.

Can you explain why you think that little Jimmy being dead is different if God does it or if god asks Stanley to do it?

Because we're talking about the motivation for the act, not the end result of the act.

Where religious morivation is man being motivated by his belief in god, you cannot have a religiously motivated god.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by Butterflytyrant, posted 01-03-2012 2:32 PM Butterflytyrant has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-03-2012 9:12 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded
 Message 259 by Omnivorous, posted 01-03-2012 10:02 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded
 Message 260 by Butterflytyrant, posted 01-04-2012 12:55 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 257 of 318 (646175)
01-03-2012 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 254 by Butterflytyrant
01-03-2012 2:24 PM


Re: You cant create the utopia until you free people from religion and get rid of it.
With regards to Stalin, if you remove the religious/athiest part of the equation, the death toll would have been near identical. Religion was a side note.

With religiously motivated deaths, removing the religious elements greatly reduces or even eliminates the deaths alltogether.

I guess I'll just have to take your word for that...

But I don't doubt that religious motivation can increase death tolls.

For example, Anglagard has introduced the Taiping Rebellion. If you remove religion from the equation, how many deaths do you think would have occured?

I don't think that question can be answered.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by Butterflytyrant, posted 01-03-2012 2:24 PM Butterflytyrant has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16085
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 258 of 318 (646266)
01-03-2012 9:12 PM
Reply to: Message 256 by New Cat's Eye
01-03-2012 2:52 PM


Where religious morivation is man being motivated by his belief in god, you cannot have a religiously motivated god.

Just as Stalin couldn't have been motivated by Stalinism, and Hitler didn't believe in the Fuehrerprinzip. Why, the very idea is a contradiction in terms!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-03-2012 2:52 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
Omnivorous
Member (Idle past 1040 days)
Posts: 3808
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005


Message 259 of 318 (646278)
01-03-2012 10:02 PM
Reply to: Message 256 by New Cat's Eye
01-03-2012 2:52 PM


CS writes:

Where religious morivation is man being motivated by his belief in god, you cannot have a religiously motivated god.

Most of the feral religious say they kill because God told them to kill.

Even the more benign act of penning the Bible is supposedly a mere act of dictation.

Whether I take out Jimmy Hoffa personally or tell an underling to do it, I'm still likely to be convicted, and certainly culpable.

But it is charming to think of God using classic cell structures or cut-outs to keep blood off His hands.


"If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-03-2012 2:52 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

    
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 2495 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 260 of 318 (646286)
01-04-2012 12:55 AM
Reply to: Message 256 by New Cat's Eye
01-03-2012 2:52 PM


my question - Why is man doing the will of god not equal to god doing the will of god?

your reply - Because its man doing it not god doing it

So, in my example, the will of god is little Jimmy being dead. In your opinion, is little Jimmy more or less dead because god killed him directly?

There are several people under my direct supervision at work. I delegate tasks. I also perform some of the tasks myself. If I decide to do a task myself, or delegate the task to one on my minions, the task is still done. Me doing my will has the same end result as delegating the task. Me being of higher rank does not change the outcome.

Where religious morivation is man being motivated by his belief in god, you cannot have a religiously motivated god.

Are you suggesting the the only definition of religious motivation is man being motivated by his belief in god?

What about all of the other definitions that have been supplied?

God is a religious figure. God deciding to do something is god excersising his will. Gods will. God doing the will of god is a religiously motivated act, the same as when man does gods will.

You cant let god off the for all of the killing his killing.

What do you think Gods motivation was? Pure homocidal, psychopathic rage? Boredom?


I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong

Butterfly, AKA, mallethead - Dawn Bertot

"Superstitions and nonsense from the past should not prevent us from making progress. If we hold ourselves back, we admit that our fears are more powerful than our abilities." Hunters of Dune Herbert & Anderson

2011 leading candidate for the EvC Forum Don Quixote award


This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-03-2012 2:52 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by purpledawn, posted 01-04-2012 8:03 AM Butterflytyrant has not yet responded
 Message 263 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-04-2012 10:42 AM Butterflytyrant has not yet responded

    
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 1530 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 261 of 318 (646310)
01-04-2012 8:03 AM
Reply to: Message 260 by Butterflytyrant
01-04-2012 12:55 AM


What is Religious Motivation?
The sticking point concerning the Bible passages seems to be a difference of opinion on what constitutes religious motivation. So far you aren't being consistent.

quote:
So, in my example, the will of god is little Jimmy being dead. In your opinion, is little Jimmy more or less dead because god killed him directly?

There are several people under my direct supervision at work. I delegate tasks. I also perform some of the tasks myself. If I decide to do a task myself, or delegate the task to one on my minions, the task is still done. Me doing my will has the same end result as delegating the task. Me being of higher rank does not change the outcome.


But that doesn't tell us why the task was being done. In Message 122, you stipulated that we are looking at the motivation for the killings, not just who did the killings. So in your scenario we would look at why you wanted the task done. What was the motive? A motive is something (as a need or desire) that causes a person to act. Your motive for wanting the task done may be different than your minions' motive for carrying out the task you gave them. The outcome is the same, but the motives may not be.

quote:
Are you suggesting the the only definition of religious motivation is man being motivated by his belief in god?

Religious violence is a term that covers all phenomena where religion, in any of its forms, is either the subject or object of violent behaviour.[1] Religious violence is, specifically, violence that is motivated by or in reaction to religious precepts, texts or doctrines.

You're not comparing apples to apples either. Actually by the definition above, if an atheists kills someone because they are a religious person, that counts as religious violence. Oddly enough if a religious person kills someone because they have no religion, I think it still counts as religious violence.

It is the reason or motivation for the killing, not the outcome.

quote:
You cant let god off the for all of the killing his killing.
No one's letting God off the hook. You specified the conditions of the debate, but you aren't sticking with your own specifications.

Butterflytyrant writes:

It is deaths caused specifically for religious reasons. Message 122

If the debate was about the violent nature of the Hebrew God, then the verses you provided would probably be evidence, but that isn't what you specified.

quote:
What do you think Gods motivation was? Pure homocidal, psychopathic rage? Boredom?
Why not? That's why we have to look at the reasons within the context of the story. Your Message 248 shows that you probably haven't read most of the stories you quoted.

Butterflytyrant writes:

Would you not agree that the deaths in Noahs flood are a direct result of the dogma of christianity?...
God killed them because they did not meet the definition of a good or true christian....

You are also adding religious reasons that have been added by apologetics.

the fallen sons of God corrupted the earth with false doctrines by intermarrying with humans and thus teaching them their ways
God sent preachers to plead with the people to change their ways, but they would not repent.

What religious precepts, texts or doctrines was God following in the flood story? None. God simply didn't like the way humans were behaving.

If you're just looking at outcome; then if an Atheist gives the order the deaths would fall under that column and if a religious person gives the order, then the deaths fall under that column. The motivation is of no consequence.

IMO, this still really leaves God's killings out of the running because he isn't religious. He doesn't have a belief system he follows.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by Butterflytyrant, posted 01-04-2012 12:55 AM Butterflytyrant has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by Straggler, posted 01-04-2012 10:36 AM purpledawn has responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10284
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 262 of 318 (646339)
01-04-2012 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 261 by purpledawn
01-04-2012 8:03 AM


Re: What is Religious Motivation?
PD writes:

IMO, this still really leaves God's killings out of the running because he isn't religious. He doesn't have a belief system he follows.

If God kills a bunch of people for having the temerity to not not believe in him or follow his doctrines surely this qualifies. No?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by purpledawn, posted 01-04-2012 8:03 AM purpledawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-04-2012 10:57 AM Straggler has responded
 Message 301 by purpledawn, posted 01-04-2012 7:27 PM Straggler has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 263 of 318 (646340)
01-04-2012 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 260 by Butterflytyrant
01-04-2012 12:55 AM


So, in my example, the will of god is little Jimmy being dead. In your opinion, is little Jimmy more or less dead because god killed him directly?

That's irrelevant... Holy shit, I just realized that there was more to Message 248 that was intended for me. That's a problem with a big post to mulitple people like that. I've still been waiting for your definition of "religiously motivated"... I just found it:

Well, what the hell do you mean by "religiously motivated". I think it means that you did something because of your religion.

An action primarily performed to increase the power of a religion. An action for a chosen deity. An action to please a chosen deity. An action performed at the request or instruction of a deity. An action performed by a deity.

I don't agree with this definition for the context of this thread, where we are comparing death tolls that can be blamed on religion, or blamed on an atheist regime.

We're gonna hafta agree on terms before we can get anywhere.

So, what is the goal? Figure out how much death was caused by religion and compare that to the death caused by atheist regimes and then use that to determine which one has the moral high ground.

If you're going to count the deaths caused by god himself, how does that give the religion the lower moral ground? If we had a bunch of Satanists who did everything possible to be the best people on earth, I don't think you could say that they had the moral low ground because the Bible says that Satan was a bad guy. Even if the followers of the religion accepted that as a fact, how would the action attributed to their god count towards their own morality?

Its not about the end result at all. Its about the motivation for the act. If your religion is what motivated you to do the act, then that act was religiously motivated. God doesn't count as "religious" so he cannot be religiously motivated. Its not that complicated and its not a semantic distraction.

Nice dance. If the motivation of the act is to kell lots of people for not following the instructions of a god, then it is religiously motivated. Remove religion from the bible, thus removing the deity and who will die? God can perform actions that are religiously motivated. Did Jesus not promote religion? I would suggest that Jesus (part of the Trinity) promoting religion would be religiously motivated.

You're not staying consistent...

If the motivation of the act is to kill lots of people for not following the instructions of a god, then, yes, the poeple who did all that killing would be religiously motivated, and take a lower moral ground.

But if we're talking about things like the global flood... How does the Flood myth take away any moral high ground from Christianity? Some people believe that their god killed everything. How is that a religiously motivated immorality? How can that fact be compared to the actions of a regime to say that believing that make them morally inferior to the regime?

There are several people under my direct supervision at work. I delegate tasks. I also perform some of the tasks myself. If I decide to do a task myself, or delegate the task to one on my minions, the task is still done. Me doing my will has the same end result as delegating the task. Me being of higher rank does not change the outcome.

Because we're talking about the motivation for the act, not the result of the act. You could say that your minions were motived by management to complete the tasks. I would say that you, as the manager, shouldn't be counted in the tolls of those "motivated by managment", because that would just be self-motivation. You argueing that the same tasks got done regardless doesn't address what was the motivation.

Where religious morivation is man being motivated by his belief in god, you cannot have a religiously motivated god.

Are you suggesting the the only definition of religious motivation is man being motivated by his belief in god?

Well that was an If-Then statement, so no. But also no because, rather than saying its the only definition, I'm saying its the most appropriate definition for the purpose of this debate.

It doesn't make sense to count the tasks completed by the manager, himself, when tallying up how much work got done by the people he manages as "motivated by management". If the manager down the hall did all the work himself, would you agree that his is better at managing people than you are?

I mostly type with my feet up on a desk with a scotch in easy reach. I have fallen asleep in this position. I cant get much more calm. How come swearing means you are argueing the person? How come an accusation of argueing the person means that you automatically get to ignore all of the points brought up in that section of the post?

Its not about the swearing, its about typing in second person with comments directed towards the person who typed up the post. And rage doesn't take removing your feet from your desk. The reason its respected, is because its part of the rules here, and in debate in general:

quote:
10.The sincerely held beliefs of other members deserve your respect. Please keep discussion civil. Argue the position, not the person.

Usually, in a well-conducted debate, speakers are either emotionally uncommitted or can preserve sufficient detachment to maintain a coolly academic approach.
-- Encyclopedia Britannica, on debate source



This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by Butterflytyrant, posted 01-04-2012 12:55 AM Butterflytyrant has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by Tangle, posted 01-04-2012 12:01 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 264 of 318 (646346)
01-04-2012 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 262 by Straggler
01-04-2012 10:36 AM


Re: What is Religious Motivation?
PD writes:

IMO, this still really leaves God's killings out of the running because he isn't religious. He doesn't have a belief system he follows.


If God kills a bunch of people for having the temerity to not not believe in him or follow his doctrines surely this qualifies. No?

Honestly, I think it can go either way, depending on what attributes you want to assign to god.

A more anthropomorphic god, who has desires, and ponders what he's going to do, and then desides to follow his own will, could be called religious in the sense that he's 'following god's will" (even tho its his own will that he's following ((which I would still kinda think ruins the definition for the purpose of this thread))).

But a more overarching god, who's will just be's done, shouldn't really count as having some religious motivation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by Straggler, posted 01-04-2012 10:36 AM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by Rahvin, posted 01-04-2012 12:09 PM New Cat's Eye has responded
 Message 307 by Straggler, posted 01-05-2012 10:14 AM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 6664
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.3


(3)
Message 265 of 318 (646360)
01-04-2012 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by New Cat's Eye
01-04-2012 10:42 AM


CS writes:


But if we're talking about things like the global flood... How does the Flood myth take away any moral high ground from Christianity?

Assuming God (any God) killed virtually every living thing on earth, then He is a genocidal tyrant and by definition, takes the lowest moral position we know of.

Similarly anyone who continues to support such a murderer, knowing His actions, must be on the lower moral rung also.

So atheists win on a technical knockout. Can we talk about something less bonkers now?


Life, don't talk to me about life.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-04-2012 10:42 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-04-2012 12:21 PM Tangle has responded

  
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 1260 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 266 of 318 (646362)
01-04-2012 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by New Cat's Eye
01-04-2012 10:57 AM


Re: What is Religious Motivation?
But a more overarching god, who's will just be's done, shouldn't really count as having some religious motivation.

Are you seriously suggesting that omnipotence excludes moral accountability? That if a being's desires simply happen that said being is not responsible for the consequences of its every whim being enacted in reality?


The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it.
- Francis Bacon

"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers


This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-04-2012 10:57 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-04-2012 12:23 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 267 of 318 (646366)
01-04-2012 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by Tangle
01-04-2012 12:01 PM


Assuming God (any God) killed virtually every living thing on earth, then He is a genocidal tyrant and by definition, takes the lowest moral position we know of.

Similarly anyone who continues to support such a murderer, knowing His actions, must be on the lower moral rung also.

So atheists win on a technical knockout.

Against a very small subset of Christianity... Most people know The Flud was a myth. How does that myth being in the Bible lower the morality of Christianity, in general?

Can we talk about something less bonkers now?

We can talk about whatever we want.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by Tangle, posted 01-04-2012 12:01 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by Rahvin, posted 01-04-2012 12:31 PM New Cat's Eye has responded
 Message 271 by Tangle, posted 01-04-2012 1:00 PM New Cat's Eye has responded
 Message 303 by Butterflytyrant, posted 01-04-2012 11:41 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 268 of 318 (646367)
01-04-2012 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by Rahvin
01-04-2012 12:09 PM


Re: What is Religious Motivation?
Are you seriously suggesting that omnipotence excludes moral accountability? That if a being's desires simply happen that said being is not responsible for the consequences of its every whim being enacted in reality?

No, I'm saying that it means that there really wasn't a motivation for the act that a religion could be ascribed to.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by Rahvin, posted 01-04-2012 12:09 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

  
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 1260 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 269 of 318 (646368)
01-04-2012 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by New Cat's Eye
01-04-2012 12:21 PM


Against a very small subset of Christianity... Most people know The Flud was a myth. How does that myth being in the Bible lower the morality of Christianity, in general?

Do most people know the Plagues of Egypt, particularly the slaying of the firstborn, was also a myth? Do they hold their God to be righteous after he sent the Angel of Death to kill every first-born, from cattle to human children, in Egypt?


The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it.
- Francis Bacon

"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers


This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-04-2012 12:21 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-04-2012 12:43 PM Rahvin has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 270 of 318 (646371)
01-04-2012 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 269 by Rahvin
01-04-2012 12:31 PM


Do most people know the Plagues of Egypt, particularly the slaying of the firstborn, was also a myth? Do they hold their God to be righteous after he sent the Angel of Death to kill every first-born, from cattle to human children, in Egypt?

I don't know.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by Rahvin, posted 01-04-2012 12:31 PM Rahvin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by Rahvin, posted 01-04-2012 1:13 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1617
18
19202122Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019