Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9174 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,609 Year: 4,866/9,624 Month: 214/427 Week: 24/103 Day: 4/9 Hour: 2/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Moral high ground
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9531
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 271 of 318 (646375)
01-04-2012 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by New Cat's Eye
01-04-2012 12:21 PM


CS writes:
Most people know The Flud was a myth.
Many people know that the bible is entirely myth of course.
The trouble is, there's no agreement amongst Christians which bits are myths and which bits are real so it's difficult to argue with you as a group; you just have to say "ah, but I don't believe that bit"
Are you're going to say that all the bad things God does in the bible are myths? If not, you can just substitute the flood myth in my statement with whatever atrocity you believe in - it still works.

Life, don't talk to me about life.

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 replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-04-2012 1:59 PM Tangle has replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4046
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 272 of 318 (646377)
01-04-2012 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 270 by New Cat's Eye
01-04-2012 12:43 PM


I don't know.
Are you sure that "most Christians know" that the Flood was a myth and not real?
How do you think you know that? What's your source?

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 270 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-04-2012 12:43 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-04-2012 2:01 PM Rahvin has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 273 of 318 (646381)
01-04-2012 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 271 by Tangle
01-04-2012 1:00 PM


Many people know that the bible is entirely myth of course.
Nonsense. It contains some facts.
The trouble is, there's no agreement amongst Christians which bits are myths and which bits are real so it's difficult to argue with you as a group; you just have to say "ah, but I don't believe that bit"
So it doesn't make sense to make blanket statements about their morality, does it?
Are you're going to say that all the bad things God does in the bible are myths? If not, you can just substitute the flood myth in my statement with whatever atrocity you believe in - it still works.
I'm still having trouble making the connection: How does believing that their god did something in the past that was bad, make them a bad person? Lets say we have a person we could all argree on, at face value, was a morally good person. How would learning that they believe in a god that did something bad, change our perception of their morality? How would it change their actual morality? Isn't is pretty much irrelevant what they believe?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by Tangle, posted 01-04-2012 1:00 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by Tangle, posted 01-04-2012 2:44 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 274 of 318 (646382)
01-04-2012 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 272 by Rahvin
01-04-2012 1:13 PM


Are you sure that "most Christians know" that the Flood was a myth and not real?
How do you think you know that? What's your source?
I looked it up in my gut... feel free to reject it in making your argument tho.
Do you honestly think that most Christians think a global flood actually happened?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by Rahvin, posted 01-04-2012 1:13 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by Rahvin, posted 01-04-2012 2:56 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9531
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 275 of 318 (646388)
01-04-2012 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 273 by New Cat's Eye
01-04-2012 1:59 PM


CS writes:
Nonsense. It contains some facts
i'm not quite sure what to do with that.
I think it's probably best that we both pretend you didn't say it ;-)
I'm still having trouble making the connection: How does believing that their god did something in the past that was bad, make them a bad person? Lets say we have a person we could all argree on, at face value, was a morally good person. How would learning that they believe in a god that did something bad, change our perception of their morality? How would it change their actual morality? Isn't is pretty much irrelevant what they believe?
A couple of issues here.
1. An all perfect, all knowing and loving god surely can't do anything bad?
2. The connection is that if someone worships a god that does bad stuff and accepts the bad stuff as fact, then we have a moral conundrum. It's one thing admiring Hitler for his organisation, leadership, vision etc; but if that person continued to admire Hitler with the full knowledge of his role in the holocaust, we'd question his morality wouldn't we?

Life, don't talk to me about life.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-04-2012 1:59 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-04-2012 2:54 PM Tangle has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 276 of 318 (646389)
01-04-2012 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 275 by Tangle
01-04-2012 2:44 PM


i'm not quite sure what to do with that.
I think it's probably best that we both pretend you didn't say it ;-)
Why? Do you think there's not one true thing in the Bible?
A couple of issues here.
So you didn't explain to me how to make the connection... Can you?
1. An all perfect, all knowing and loving god surely can't do anything bad?
I don't see how that helps your argument.
2. The connection is that if someone worships a god that does bad stuff and accepts the bad stuff as fact, then we have a moral conundrum. It's one thing admiring Hitler for his organisation, leadership, vision etc; but if that person continued to admire Hitler with the full knowledge of his role in the holocaust, we'd question his morality wouldn't we?
I don't judge people's morality by their admirations, but by how they conduct themselves. Is that really what you think morality should be judged on? Fucking beliefs!?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by Tangle, posted 01-04-2012 2:44 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by Perdition, posted 01-04-2012 2:59 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 283 by Tangle, posted 01-04-2012 3:35 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4046
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 277 of 318 (646390)
01-04-2012 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by New Cat's Eye
01-04-2012 2:01 PM


I looked it up in my gut... feel free to reject it in making your argument tho.
Do you honestly think that most Christians think a global flood actually happened?
Your "gut" is not a reliable source of information. It's worthless, in fact - you're making a statement as fact when you knowingly acknowledge that you have no data upon which to support such an assertion.
I don't know how many Christians globally think that the Flood was real vs myth. I haven't seen a good survey.
I do know several individuals and multiple churches who treat it as fact from personal experience, but I have no idea how my small representative sample from my own life (not random, limited to specific denominations in specific geographical areas and where not every individual was polled) compares to Christianity as a whole. In argument, my experience would be proof that there are at least some Christians who believe the Flood to be historical fact, but would be useless to determine what most Christians do or do not know.
I imagine that your own "data" are similarly limited, yes? Rationally, that would preclude you from making any such claim about what "most Christians" do or do not know, wouldn't it?

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 274 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-04-2012 2:01 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-04-2012 3:09 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3320 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


(1)
Message 278 of 318 (646391)
01-04-2012 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 276 by New Cat's Eye
01-04-2012 2:54 PM


Topic Drift
I don't judge people's morality by their admirations, but by how they conduct themselves. Is that really what you think morality should be judged on? Fucking beliefs!?
I think this discussion has drifted a bit from the OP. As I understand it, the original argument was saying that religious people who claim that they are morally superior to atheists based on the respective deaths caused by the two sides, and who also hold that all the deaths in the OT actually happened are wrong.
It is then a discussion for those people to determine what the actual numbers are. For those who know the flood is a myth, or who don't base their level of morality on supposed deaths caused by each side, this argument is useless or purely academic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-04-2012 2:54 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-04-2012 3:10 PM Perdition has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 279 of 318 (646394)
01-04-2012 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 277 by Rahvin
01-04-2012 2:56 PM


Well whoopty-fucking-doo... as I said, feel free to reject my claim while your making your argument. You gonna get around to that today? Or are you just taking pot-shots from the sidelines?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by Rahvin, posted 01-04-2012 2:56 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 280 of 318 (646396)
01-04-2012 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 278 by Perdition
01-04-2012 2:59 PM


Re: Topic Drift
I think this discussion has drifted a bit from the OP. As I understand it, the original argument was saying that religious people who claim that they are morally superior to atheists based on the respective deaths caused by the two sides, and who also hold that all the deaths in the OT actually happened are wrong.
It is then a discussion for those people to determine what the actual numbers are. For those who know the flood is a myth, or who don't base their level of morality on supposed deaths caused by each side, this argument is useless or purely academic.
Yeah, we've all pretty much agreed with that. Well, I'm still not seeing the connection between believing that your god did something bad in the past, and being a bad person.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by Perdition, posted 01-04-2012 2:59 PM Perdition has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by Rahvin, posted 01-04-2012 3:22 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 282 by Perdition, posted 01-04-2012 3:28 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4046
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 281 of 318 (646400)
01-04-2012 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 280 by New Cat's Eye
01-04-2012 3:10 PM


Re: Topic Drift
Yeah, we've all pretty much agreed with that. Well, I'm still not seeing the connection between believing that your god did something bad in the past, and being a bad person.
If you believe that your god did something bad, and you believe that it was okay for your god to do that, then you have at minimum an inconsistent system of morality.
Whether you're a "bad person" or not depends on the ethical system in play. From an authoritarian standpoint, where morality issues from obedience to the authority, Action X can be ethical one day and unethical the next depending on the whim of the authority.
Personally, I find that sort of morality to be repugnant, as it allows the authority to commit or condone acts of genocide, torture, and rape and still be called "good."
I practice humanistic preference utilitarianism. To me, any act of genocide or rape or torture, regardless of who is doing it, "god" or mortal, is reprehensibly evil, and anyone who believes that such an action was okay is also evil.
So yes, I think that if you believe that your god killed the world or killed all of Egypt's firstborn or even just that human sacrifice and scapegoating (ie, Jesus) are morally right actions, then I think you are a bad person. Not as bad as if you had actually committed the acts yourself, but I don't think it's acceptable to think that those sorts of actions were ever acceptable for anyone.

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 280 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-04-2012 3:10 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-04-2012 3:54 PM Rahvin has replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3320 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


(2)
Message 282 of 318 (646402)
01-04-2012 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 280 by New Cat's Eye
01-04-2012 3:10 PM


Re: Topic Drift
Well, I'm still not seeing the connection between believing that your god did something bad in the past, and being a bad person.
Well, it depends on whether you consider your god to be a good or moral being.
If I told you that I admired the hijakers on 9/11 or believed that Timothy McVeigh was A-OK, regardless of whether I worked with the homeless and donated every extra dollar to charity, wouldn't you kind of keep your distance from me?
I agree it's kind of a guilty by association thing, but who you admire tends to be who you emulat. And being able to justify calling someone else's repugnant actions "good" is just one step from being able to justify doing it yourself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-04-2012 3:10 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-04-2012 3:52 PM Perdition has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9531
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 283 of 318 (646405)
01-04-2012 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 276 by New Cat's Eye
01-04-2012 2:54 PM


CS writes:
Why? Do you think there's not one true thing in the Bible
um, !'m sure there are lots of true things in the bible, it's quite a big book, if would be an immense achievement if it was pretending to tell the truth but delivered total lies. My slight amazement was in hearing a Christian saying that the bible contains only some true stuff. But I think I understand what you mean.
So you didn't explain to me how to make the connection... Can you?
um (x2) I explain that in the bit where I say this "The connection is that etc"
I don't judge people's morality by their admirations, but by how they conduct themselves. Is that really what you think morality should be judged on? Fucking beliefs!?
Well personally, I'm not too concerned with people's morality - but I do make general judgements about them on what they 'fucking' believe - if they are extreme; don't you?
I tend not to get on with people who claim that homosexuals are an abomination, that black people should go home (or similar racist remarks), the women should stay out of the workplace, that atheists can't gain political power or that Noah built an ark.
If someone shared with me their admiration of Hitler, I would tend to think fairly badly of them and I suspect that you would too.
But we are talking about extremes here. Not the majority.

Life, don't talk to me about life.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-04-2012 2:54 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 284 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-04-2012 3:49 PM Tangle has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 284 of 318 (646409)
01-04-2012 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 283 by Tangle
01-04-2012 3:35 PM


um (x2) I explain that in the bit where I say this "The connection is that etc"
Eh?:
quote:
The connection is that if someone worships a god that does bad stuff and accepts the bad stuff as fact, then we have a moral conundrum.
Hrm, I'm still not seeing the connection between believing that their god did something in the past that was bad, and them being a bad person.
Well personally, I'm not too concerned with people's morality - but I do make general judgements about them on what they 'fucking' believe - if they are extreme; don't you?
No, I make judgements about how they conduct themselves... because, well, that's what morality is. As I said, beliefs are irrelvant.
If someone shared with me their admiration of Hitler, I would tend to think fairly badly of them and I suspect that you would too.
Sharing your admirations of Hitler isn't a very good way of conducting yourself.... Simply admiring his organization, or whatever, doesn't make you a bad person.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by Tangle, posted 01-04-2012 3:35 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by Tangle, posted 01-04-2012 4:09 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 285 of 318 (646411)
01-04-2012 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 282 by Perdition
01-04-2012 3:28 PM


Re: Topic Drift
Well, I'm still not seeing the connection between believing that your god did something bad in the past, and being a bad person.
Well, it depends on whether you consider your god to be a good or moral being.
If you did, that would make you a bad person?
If I told you that I admired the hijakers on 9/11 or believed that Timothy McVeigh was A-OK, regardless of whether I worked with the homeless and donated every extra dollar to charity, wouldn't you kind of keep your distance from me?
No, your conduct outweighs your admirations.
I agree it's kind of a guilty by association thing, but who you admire tends to be who you emulat. And being able to justify calling someone else's repugnant actions "good" is just one step from being able to justify doing it yourself.
And that makes you a bad person? Really?
Does "being closer to being able to help someone" make you a good person? Or does actaully helping someone make you a good person?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by Perdition, posted 01-04-2012 3:28 PM Perdition has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by Perdition, posted 01-04-2012 4:11 PM New Cat's Eye 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