Author Topic: "...Except when my God is involved"  (Read 52706 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Noman Peopled

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1904
  • Darwins +24/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • [insert wittycism]
Re: "...Except when my God is involved"
« Reply #1334 on: September 14, 2010, 11:04:55 AM »
Dunno.

A: "Is this Wootah's apartment? I really want to murder him and his family."
B: "Yeah, this is the right place."
A: "Thanks buddy, now please stand aside."
B: *walks away whistling a tune*

Seems clear-cut to me.
"Deferinate" itself appears to be a new word... though I'm perfectly carmotic with it.
-xphobe

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1572
  • Darwins +10/-66
Re: "...Except when my God is involved"
« Reply #1335 on: September 14, 2010, 11:05:23 AM »
Regardless, let's not get off topic.
Quote
BUT FOR you telling them about the Jews, would they have been killed? The answer is no, as it is in my two scenarios. That is all that is needed for causality.
While it is true that BUT FOR the Nazis this would not have happened (or but for the gunmen), it is still true that the person in question lays on the line of causality.
Do you disagree? On what grounds? Please reference my scenarios.

So, even though I have absolutely no desire or willingness to be part of the main/first cause….and I do not condone the actions of the main cause….and I willingly fight against the main cause (even if I lose my life in the process)…… and I am on this line of causality only because of someone elses moral  ”wrong” ….I am still guilty of being a part of the cause?????!!!!!
I don't buy that. I won't buy that. I will not be made to blame for a moral "wrong" (cause) that I am opposed to. That is preposterous !


Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1572
  • Darwins +10/-66
Re: "...Except when my God is involved"
« Reply #1336 on: September 14, 2010, 11:08:22 AM »
You'll just find some other way to justify it so you can come to whatever conclusion you want.  I don't know why I bother.

No, don't say that. I don't just brush off everything someone offers to support their position.

I will read through the article you provided.

 

Offline MathIsCool

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 193
  • Darwins +1/-6
  • Gender: Male
Re: "...Except when my God is involved"
« Reply #1337 on: September 14, 2010, 12:41:43 PM »
Wow, go out of town for a week[1] and come back to 14 more pages to read.  Ugh.

Might I suggest we take this to one of those formal debate rooms I keep hearing about?  That way we could have opening arguments, rebuttals, conclusions (maybe work in a cross-x period in there somehow) and then be done.

Just a thought.  I've set up a challenge here
 1. Apologies for the unnotified absence...
Why not name the website ... "whywontGodallowlaserstoshootoutofmyeyespewpewpew.com"

 - Expurgate, here

Offline Gnu Ordure

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3832
  • Darwins +109/-9
  • Gender: Male
Re: "...Except when my God is involved"
« Reply #1338 on: September 14, 2010, 01:21:32 PM »
BS, I explained in my last post (here) how in the war informing on Jews was a form of collaboration, a serious crime related to the Biblical sin of murder. In fact, many collaborators were executed after the war, so in their cases it was a capital offence, as murder itself is (in many places).

Do you accept this, or not?

« Last Edit: September 14, 2010, 01:24:46 PM by Gnu Ordure »

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1572
  • Darwins +10/-66
Re: "...Except when my God is involved"
« Reply #1339 on: September 14, 2010, 03:31:15 PM »
BS, I explained in my last post (here) how in the war informing on Jews was a form of collaboration, a serious crime related to the Biblical sin of murder. In fact, many collaborators were executed after the war, so in their cases it was a capital offence, as murder itself is (in many places).

Do you accept this, or not?

The "Do Not Kill/Murder" commandment does not apply here. This commandment establishes that the person committing murder is guilty when they desire to murder, are willing to murder, consciously condone murder, or are in someway directly responsible for a murder.


Offline truehyuga

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 208
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Back. For now.
Re: "...Except when my God is involved"
« Reply #1340 on: September 14, 2010, 03:39:43 PM »
Quote
So, even though I have absolutely no desire or willingness to be part of the main/first cause….and I do not condone the actions of the main cause….and I willingly fight against the main cause (even if I lose my life in the process)…… and I am on this line of causality only because of someone elses moral  ”wrong” ….I am still guilty of being a part of the cause?????!!!!!
I don't buy that. I won't buy that. I will not be made to blame for a moral "wrong" (cause) that I am opposed to. That is preposterous !
This is not a logical objection, this is a plea.
Please answer the question or admit you have no grounds to do so.

Also, this entire objection screams of tunnel vision. You are stating that so long as you do what you believe is right, damn the problems caused in the process. Is this really what you mean to say?
What you allow will always increase; good or bad.

Offline Ambassador Pony

  • You keep what you kill.
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 6856
  • Darwins +71/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • illuminatus
Re: "...Except when my God is involved"
« Reply #1341 on: September 14, 2010, 03:42:14 PM »
Quote
or are in someway directly responsible for a murder.

DING DING DING
You believe evolution and there is no evidence for that. Where is the fossil record of a half man half ape. I've only ever heard about it in reading.

Offline OnePerson

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 739
  • Darwins +0/-0
Re: "...Except when my God is involved"
« Reply #1342 on: September 14, 2010, 03:42:29 PM »
BS, I explained in my last post (here) how in the war informing on Jews was a form of collaboration, a serious crime related to the Biblical sin of murder. In fact, many collaborators were executed after the war, so in their cases it was a capital offence, as murder itself is (in many places).

Do you accept this, or not?

The "Do Not Kill/Murder" commandment does not apply here. This commandment establishes that the person committing murder is guilty when they desire to murder, are willing to murder, consciously condone murder, or are in someway directly responsible for a murder.

You'd fall under this.

If you're an arms dealer and you sell weapons to terrorists knowing exactly what they're planning to do with it, how responsible are you?

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12210
  • Darwins +267/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: "...Except when my God is involved"
« Reply #1343 on: September 14, 2010, 03:57:04 PM »
If you're an arms dealer and you sell weapons to terrorists knowing exactly what they're planning to do with it, how responsible are you?

To be more accurate, include the parameter that if the terrorists don't get the weapons from him, then they won't likely get the weapons from anyone.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline Gnu Ordure

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3832
  • Darwins +109/-9
  • Gender: Male
Re: "...Except when my God is involved"
« Reply #1344 on: September 14, 2010, 04:12:11 PM »
BS (my bold):
Quote
The "Do Not Kill/Murder" commandment does not apply here. This commandment establishes that the person committing murder is guilty when they desire to murder, are willing to murder, consciously condone murder, or are in someway directly responsible for a murder.

Where exactly in the bible does it confirm that this (ie your) interpretation of this commandment is correct? Don't bother answering, we all know you just made this up to suit your argument on this thread.

Quote
or are in someway directly responsible for a murder
Ah. Excuse me. Why not "indirectly" as well? It doesn't have to be your finger on the trigger for you to be guilty.

The fact is that being indirectly responsible for someone's murder is a crime and a sin. In some situations, such as collaboration, the crime was regarded to be just as serious as murder, and the ultimate punishment was prescribed.

Are you still trying to say that informing on Jews to Nazis was not a crime and a sin?

Think, BS. This shouldn't be a difficult question. Most people understand that genocide is wrong, and that therefore collaborating in genocide is wrong.

BS, while you're considering your reply, bear in mind the implication of insisting that collaboration is not a sin.

If you believe this, you are truly lost. If you truly don't understand the immorality of informing on Jews to Nazis, then all your claims to an objective morality which you can apply to any situation to decide the right course of action are revealed to be totally hollow. Your 'objective morality' has led you into helping the Nazis achieve their evil purpose.
 
And the worst thing is, you don't even recognize that in so doing, you're being just as evil as they are.


Ambassador Pony:
Quote
Quote
or are in someway directly responsible for a murder.
DING DING DING
I believe the Ambassador is drawing your attention to the same point, BS.
« Last Edit: September 15, 2010, 09:16:58 AM by Gnu Ordure »

Offline OnePerson

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 739
  • Darwins +0/-0
Re: "...Except when my God is involved"
« Reply #1345 on: September 14, 2010, 04:54:45 PM »
I think this is a pretty good example of subjective morality actually. 
The Nazis themselves didn't think what they did was wrong either.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1572
  • Darwins +10/-66
Re: "...Except when my God is involved"
« Reply #1346 on: September 14, 2010, 07:24:59 PM »
Also, this entire objection screams of tunnel vision. You are stating that so long as you do what you believe is right, damn the problems caused in the process. Is this really what you mean to say?

Yes, in a manner of speaking, that pretty much sums it up.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1572
  • Darwins +10/-66
Re: "...Except when my God is involved"
« Reply #1347 on: September 14, 2010, 07:26:47 PM »
Are you still trying to say that informing on Jews to Nazis was not a crime and a sin?

That is correct.

Offline Gnu Ordure

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3832
  • Darwins +109/-9
  • Gender: Male
Re: "...Except when my God is involved"
« Reply #1348 on: September 14, 2010, 08:35:02 PM »
Quote
Quote
Are you still trying to say that informing on Jews to Nazis was not a crime and a sin?
That is correct.

Then you are condemned from your own mouth.

There's nothing else to say, beyond what I said before:

Quote
If you believe this, you are truly lost. If you truly don't understand the immorality of informing on Jews to Nazis, then all your claims to an objective morality which you can apply to any situation to decide the right course of action are revealed to be totally hollow. Your 'objective morality' has led you into helping the Nazis achieve their evil purpose.
 
And the worst thing is, you don't even recognize that in so doing, you're being just as evil as they are.
« Last Edit: September 15, 2010, 09:16:17 AM by Gnu Ordure »

Offline truehyuga

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 208
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Back. For now.
Re: "...Except when my God is involved"
« Reply #1349 on: September 14, 2010, 09:39:31 PM »
Also, this entire objection screams of tunnel vision. You are stating that so long as you do what you believe is right, damn the problems caused in the process. Is this really what you mean to say?

Yes, in a manner of speaking, that pretty much sums it up.

So you admit that your morality is not necessarily conducive to a happy, healthy society?
What you allow will always increase; good or bad.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1572
  • Darwins +10/-66
Re: "...Except when my God is involved"
« Reply #1350 on: September 14, 2010, 09:56:17 PM »
I see no point in continuing. We are going around in one big circle. I have stated my case and you have stated yours. Time to move on. If you feel that I am somehow deceiving myself, you are certainly welcome to make that accusation. I can assure you, though, that I have spent much time in considering all of the comments that were posted.


Offline truehyuga

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 208
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Back. For now.
Re: "...Except when my God is involved"
« Reply #1351 on: September 14, 2010, 10:00:55 PM »
Is or is not your morality necessarily conducive to a healthy and happy society? Answer the damn question, it is at the very BASIS of morality.
What you allow will always increase; good or bad.

Offline Gnu Ordure

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3832
  • Darwins +109/-9
  • Gender: Male
Re: "...Except when my God is involved"
« Reply #1352 on: September 14, 2010, 10:12:49 PM »
BS:
Quote
I see no point in continuing.

I'm not surprised. There's nowhere else to go.

Your immorality and your inhumanity are plain for all to see.

And your 'objective morality' is exposed for the useless construct that it is.  


And you are lost, BS. I feel sorry for you.
« Last Edit: September 14, 2010, 10:18:10 PM by Gnu Ordure »

Offline mrbiscoop

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 911
  • Darwins +29/-2
  • Faith is not a virtue!
Re: "...Except when my God is involved"
« Reply #1353 on: September 14, 2010, 10:17:02 PM »
I thought this topic should of been killed weeks ago.
When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realised that the Lord doesn't work that way so I stole one and asked Him to forgive me.
              -Emo Philips

Offline Gnu Ordure

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3832
  • Darwins +109/-9
  • Gender: Male
Re: "...Except when my God is involved"
« Reply #1354 on: September 14, 2010, 10:19:43 PM »
We're in the pit, mrbiscoop. If you don't like it, go somewhere else. Simple.

Offline RaymondKHessel

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1914
  • Darwins +73/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • Born with insight, and a raised fist.
Re: "...Except when my God is involved"
« Reply #1355 on: September 14, 2010, 10:24:18 PM »
What a disgusting human being. And what a disgusting religion.  :(

Good job showing how utterly selfish and shitheaded Christians can be though. Really. You do Yahweh proud, I'm sure.

And I bet if Jesus were in Nazi Germany,  Biblestudent would totally rat him out to the Nazis to avoid God's Wrath.

And by this logic, Judas was actually the GOOD guy in the bible. Afterall, he told the Truth that condemned Christ!  The Romans ask Judas to point out Jesus, and he does it with a kiss! So, you know, a totally BALLESS way to tell the truth, but Gawd bless 'em for doing it eh!? Am I right or am I right!?:D

Ugh. I'm so greatfull that this line of thinking is isolated to the lunatic fringe. What a shitty world it would be otherwise.
Born with insight, and a raised fist.

Offline truehyuga

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 208
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Back. For now.
Re: "...Except when my God is involved"
« Reply #1356 on: September 14, 2010, 10:36:06 PM »
If this ends as is, I'm definitely using this as a way to argue for moral subjectivity.
-Give Nazi scenario
-If yes, point out thou shalt not lie
-They give exceptions
-I ask to justify the exceptions
-Give BS' entire argument that you should never lie
-Point out to do the right thing they have to be subjective
What you allow will always increase; good or bad.

Offline mrbiscoop

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 911
  • Darwins +29/-2
  • Faith is not a virtue!
Re: "...Except when my God is involved"
« Reply #1357 on: September 14, 2010, 10:37:30 PM »
We're in the pit, mrbiscoop. If you don't like it, go somewhere else. Simple.
    If you choose to keep banging your head against the wall and interacting with BS then go right ahead. Oh yeah that's right he sees no point in continuing so I guess he wont be here to argue with. There have been more than 1000 posts on this topic, however if you have something earth shatteringly profound to add at this point then go right ahead. I'm all ears. Simple. And yeah I know we are in the "pit".
When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realised that the Lord doesn't work that way so I stole one and asked Him to forgive me.
              -Emo Philips

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12210
  • Darwins +267/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: "...Except when my God is involved"
« Reply #1358 on: September 14, 2010, 10:56:56 PM »
Well, sorry to disappoint you here, mrbiscoop[1], but now that MiC is back, I have a long, unanswered post from WAAAAY back that I'm going to dig up and quote:

So essentially, your agreement with moral precept X is determined by your own personal values.  Those personal values, being yours, are subjective.
Yes.  My opinions on 1+1=2 are also wholy mine, but in a similar way that doesn't affect the objective-ness of the statement "1+1=2", does it?
 1. Not really though.  Actually I delight in it.

Math may be a bad example for you to use here, MiC, because it is not objectively true that - for example - 1+1=2.  The axioms which underly our familiar arithmetic are logically arbitrary.  They could be anything.  There are systems of arithmetic under which 1 plus 1 does not equal 2.  For your examples, you should try to use facts about the physical universe, rather than about human-created systems founded on subjectively selected axioms.[2]

Not objectively.  But requiring one's morals to be objectively right in order to act on them is not something that a consistent moral subjectivist would actually have to do.  This is what I was talking about in my last post to BibleStudent.

That's a pretty anemic morality you got there.  If things are just your opinion, is that really enough weight to stop anyone else (who are just following their opinion, after all?) from doing what they want?  When you hear about catholic priests raping young boys, after you get through fiercely denouncing them and their evil religion, do you add "... but that's just my opinion.  Your mileage may vary." at the end?
 2. Doubt what I'm saying?  Then try to explain what "2" is, outside of human label-assignment.

What I just said contradicts the conclusion you just drew from it.  In fact, the point of what I said is that subjective morality only seems anemic from your paradigm, with your assumptions in play.

Of course, nothing in your supposed non-material reality can do any better, logically speaking.  You can pretend that it does, of course - refusing to think about it further - but that's about it.

Christianity's path out of nihilism is merely to refrain from thinking about it.  Logically, nihilism is no less true under Christianity than under any other belief system.  The rules of logic do not change when one becomes a Christian (or at least, they shouldn't).

Christianity's path out of morality is to assert the presence of a moral and just law-giver who anchors true morality to his good will.

I assume you mean "Christianity's path out of nihilism", rather than out of morality.  What do "moral" and "just" mean in that sentence?  Let's see here...

Step #1:  No objective morality yet, so let's make some.
Step #2:  Define "moral" and "just" subjectively according to one's own personal values.
Step #3:  Assert the presence of a "moral" and "just" lawgiver.
Step #4:  Forget what we did in Step #2, as it is an inconvenient memory.

Got another path?  See, the judgment that a god is "moral" and "just" is a subjective one, carried out by its believers.  It's a human decree.  How could it be otherwise?  You can say that your god is objectively good, but without some objective standard to use to come to that judgment, it's as well-founded as saying that Genghis Khan was objectively good.

If you're gonna play ball in the Christian neighborhood you play by Christian rules.

I am pointing out a logical problem with the rules.  I can see why you would like to forbid that rather than discuss it, however.

So you're a believer in the Christian God who disagrees with His morality?  Wow dude.  Let me see here, it'd go something like this...

As a believer, you understand that you are created and He is your creator.

What does an act of creation have to do with morality, logically speaking?  Break it down into a logical syllogism.  What is the logical relevance?  There is none that I am aware of.  The crediting of a creator with sovereignty over its creation is one of the very cultural rules you are trying to establish in the first place.  You can't start here.

You are His, wholely and completely, the same way a fictional character you create is entirely yours.

That only makes sense if I am not real.  It only makes sense if physical reality is subjective.  Are you claiming that physical reality is subjective?

In any case, if I were to accept this premise, then it would follow that I am completely amoral.  All of my actions would essentially be decided by God, in the same way that a fictional character's actions are decided by its author.  This leaves no room for God to make a moral judgment, just as it makes no sense of an author to be offended by the actions of a character (s)he creates.  (S)he decided those actions in the first place!

Just like when you create a fictional world you get to define the laws you wish, so to does He define our world.  His word thus literally defines goodness in a way you clearly do not comprehend.

Nor can you explain it coherently.  In light of this failure, I would suggest that you do not comprehend it yourself.

Further, if I created a fictional world, then I would not get to create objective moral rules within that world.  I would only get to create the moral values of its characters, as expressed by their dialogue, and I could attempt to appeal to the moral values of the reader.  I could directly write "...and what George did, here, was wrong!" - but in doing so I would be speaking as the author, and a reader would have no obligation to agree with me.

To not agree with Him is to not agree with gravity.

Gravity is not a law.  It is a description of how things work, in practice.

How you dare judge your eternal, righteous and good God is beyond me, but you also know he is merciful and slow to anger, so my advice to you is to repent and beg forgiveness for your petty rebellion, or you will surely suffer the consequences your folly so richly deserves.
... or something like that.

I would respond that you yourself have already judged Him.  You came to a different decision about him, but you still applied your judgment.  You still sat on His throne.  You just happened to deign to share it with him.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline truehyuga

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 208
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Back. For now.
Re: "...Except when my God is involved"
« Reply #1359 on: September 14, 2010, 10:57:42 PM »
We're in the pit, mrbiscoop. If you don't like it, go somewhere else. Simple.
    If you choose to keep banging your head against the wall and interacting with BS then go right ahead. Oh yeah that's right he sees no point in continuing so I guess he wont be here to argue with. There have been more than 1000 posts on this topic, however if you have something earth shatteringly profound to add at this point then go right ahead. I'm all ears. Simple. And yeah I know we are in the "pit".
And his (ours, now) points is that instead of making comments solely to bitch, you should simply stop posting.
If you don't feel the thread is worth participating in, don't.
What you allow will always increase; good or bad.

Offline MathIsCool

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 193
  • Darwins +1/-6
  • Gender: Male
Re: "...Except when my God is involved"
« Reply #1360 on: September 15, 2010, 07:20:17 PM »
Well, OK, one more for old times sake.  I'm with BS on this thread, though, I don't really feel a huge obligation to continue because I don't think anything is getting done.
... but like I said, once more for old times sake.

1.Attacking Subjective Morality
You start by bringing up the discovery/invention debate mathematicians have been having for literally centuries and casually asserting it away, going with the invention crowd and against such luminaries as Galileo, Pythagoras, and Plato.[1]
Math may be a bad example for you to use here, MiC, because it is not objectively true that - for example - 1+1=2.  The axioms which underly our familiar arithmetic are logically arbitrary.  They could be anything.
This of course is a huge topic and could spawn a whole 46 page debate on it's own, so it ought to suffice to say that I'm a platonist; I think mathematical truths are objectively real.[2]  Speaking of Plato, he was also in my camp regarding objective morals.  Indeed, most philosophers nowadays are.  From Wikipedia:
Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_realism
Most philosophers today lean towards moral realism, as do most meta-ethicists. Some examples of robust moral realists include David Brink, John McDowell, Peter Railton, Geoffrey Sayre-McCord, Michael Smith, Terence Cuneo, Russ Shafer-Landau, G.E. Moore, Ayn Rand, John Finnis, Richard Boyd, Nicholas Sturgeon, and Thomas Nagel. Plato and (arguably) Immanuel Kant could also be considered moral realists. Norman Geras has argued that Karl Marx was a moral realist

You go on to assert your way out of another conundrum, that being subjective morality has no basis to act because morality, under a subjective set of assumptions, does not say anything about the real workings of the universe.  In response to my "That's a pretty anemic morality you got there" you say:
What I just said contradicts the conclusion you just drew from it.  In fact, the point of what I said is that subjective morality only seems anemic from your paradigm, with your assumptions in play.

Your point seems to be that one can act on one's (subjective) morality and be perfectly consistent.   Of course you can.  I can drink chocolate milk based on nothing more than my subjective opinion that it's tasty.  I can plan ahead to acquire more chocolate milk, I can secure additional funds for the means to acquire chocolate milk, I can construct elaborate plans to secure a future rich in chocolate milk.

However, without assuming that morality is universal and objective, the way we actually treat morals is odd.  We condemn societies that don't agree with us on moral precepts, in some cases even going to war to stop a nation from committing genocide, for example.  If morals are nothing more than subjective opinions this is truly bizarre behavior.  We would never do the same over any other subjective opinion, why do we do it over a disagreement over supposedly subjective morals?

The point is not that subjective moralists do not act on their opinions.  They do so all the time, but when they do, they are implicitly assuming, even if they can't see it, an objective, universal set of morals.  If you were to truly be consistent about subjecitve morals and thus act on them the same way you act on other opinions, yours would be an anemic morality indeed.

But hey, maybe I'm wrong.  Let me bring in my hypothetical materialist in again, with a different opinion than you about, say, theft.  He's proud of the fact that he's managed to embezzle money from his employer.  Can you, using nothing other than your materialism and your subjective morality, convince him he was "wrong?" (Whatever "wrong" means.)  Or are you forced at the end of the day to say you and he disagree, and since such disagreement is symmetrical, you are just as wrong as he is.  The fact that (I predict) you're forced at the end of the day to come to a mere disagreement, that you are just as wrong for not stealing as he is for stealing, is what I mean by anemic morality.

2.In Defense of Christian Morality
The rest of your post seems to be devoted to the idea that Christian morality is subjective.  Let me go into a bit more detail than "God is objective, so our morality is objective as well."

You start by saying
Step #1:  No objective morality yet, so let's make some.
Step #2:  Define "moral" and "just" subjectively according to one's own personal values.
Step #3:  Assert the presence of a "moral" and "just" lawgiver.
Step #4:  Forget what we did in Step #2, as it is an inconvenient memory.
Let me rephrase this so you know I understand your point.  You're saying I start with my own opinion about what "Just" means, and then since I assume God is good, I assign this quality "Just" that I just made up to Him.  Same goes for "Kind", "Merciful", "Moral," and even "Good" itself.  In other words, because God is imaginary, I'm simply assigning my morality to Him.  S.P.A.G. at it's finest.

This attack fails on the one little phrase "because God is imaginary."  Your argument takes as an assumption that God does not exist, and then goes on to prove the Christians morality is subjective.[3]  Well, of course it is!  You just assumed our source of morality out of existence!  I'd congratulate you in the same way I'd congratulate a mad prisoner defining the Sun out of existence by scribbling the word 'darkness' on his cell wall, to borrow an analogy from the venerable Mr. Lewis.  In fact, let's take that same prisoner and show how the exact same argument applies to his situation as well:

Step #1:  None of this "light" stuff you sunists keep on making up, so let's make some.
Step #2:  Define "light" and "bright" and "shiny" subjectively according to one's own opinions.
Step #3:  Assert the presence of a "light" and "shiny" sun.
Step #4:  Forget what we did in Step #2, as it is an inconvenient memory.

The rest of your post you devote to deconstructing my hypothetical talk to your hypothetical Christian who defies God himself, and is sounding more and more like an atheist.  When I said "If you're gonna play ball in the Christian neighborhood you play by Christian rules." I meant it - if your hypothetical Christian really is a Christian she ought to act like one.[4]

You ask
What does an act of creation have to do with morality, logically speaking? ... The crediting of a creator with sovereignty over its creation is one of the very cultural rules you are trying to establish in the first place.  You can't start here.
Our hypothetical Christian would understand that when Christians talk about morality we always start with God.  Morality consists in discovering God's Will for us, the same way a platonist discovers mathematical rules instead of inventing them.  Morality is not created arbitrarily and then patched up by saying "God wants me to do this."[5]  He says creation is His, and that He is 'allowed' to dictate morality; He claims absolute sovereignty over it.  I can and do start here, and in order to stay true to the hypothetical Christian you created, you cannot cry foul.

Let me skip a defense of the author analogy.  Like any analogy it can be stretched too far, a fact you aptly demonstrated.

Your thundering conclusion:
I would respond that you yourself have already judged Him.  You came to a different decision about him, but you still applied your judgment.  You still sat on His throne.  You just happened to deign to share it with him.
Christianity, properly practiced, does not judge God.  It starts with God and takes his will for us as the definition of "Good."  The atheist usually shrieks here that if God willed it wanton Murder would be just as Good as not murdering is now.  Well, yeah.  But he doesn't, and he won't, so it's not.  Indeed, Christians discover that morality is so much more than the pathetic rules we're discussing here.  "Don't murder?"  Please, that's 101 morality.  Graduate into what the rest of us enjoy every day - a profound grattitude for the heaping blessings of Bach, working ankles, the Cross, rainbows, science and math, Carbon Leaf, Jesus Christ -- our Lord and Savior, beer, SQL databases, iPods, soft and dewey grass, Halo III and Starcraft II, tigers - the list goes on.  The longer I live the more I am in awe of God and his Goodness.  Judge Him??  I bend the knee, and am grateful for the chance to do so.

Ultimately your whole argument rests on an assumed rejection of Plato's "Good."  Christians, philosophically, try to discover Good, to discover God's will.  It is this philosophical position that allows us to answer with consistency why certain things are good and certain other things aren't.  Your conclusion, that we make it up, is to assume that Plato's Good, that God himself does not exist.  It's an assumption that leads to a dry and bitter life.  Drop it.  Come up into what the other 2.2 billion of us are enjoying every day, and welcome.

Finally, I want to strenuously object when you say I sit on his throne.  Perhaps I do, I struggle to do less so every day.  However, by asserting that morality is subjective you are asserting that your personal opinion is ultimately more important than anything or anyone else when it comes to morality.  Murder, Theft, what-have-you is wrong not because you are submitting to some higher authority but only for the arbitrary reason that you don't like it.  Your breathtaking assertion is that there is none higher than you, you and you alone ultimately decide what you shall decide is "good" and as "bad."  In his own pathetic, constrained, philosophical way, our hypothetical materialist is god.  None shall, indeed, none can convince him that his actions are wrong, if he wills it it is Good.  From where I sit, that looks a heckuva lot like sitting on God's throne.


Thanks for listening,
MiC
 1. For more information, here is a good place to get started.
 2. I bring this up even though it's not strictly attacking subjective morality because it's attacking the idea of subjective reality, and the two are closely related.
 3. Right there in step 1, you say "objective morality isn't around yet."
 4. To avoid the tiresome (s)he, I'll assume she's a she.  I assume it doesn't matter?
 5. Though of course we do that all the time, to our shame.
Why not name the website ... "whywontGodallowlaserstoshootoutofmyeyespewpewpew.com"

 - Expurgate, here

Offline mrbiscoop

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 911
  • Darwins +29/-2
  • Faith is not a virtue!
Re: "...Except when my God is involved"
« Reply #1361 on: September 15, 2010, 08:04:23 PM »
We're in the pit, mrbiscoop. If you don't like it, go somewhere else. Simple.
    If you choose to keep banging your head against the wall and interacting with BS then go right ahead. Oh yeah that's right he sees no point in continuing so I guess he wont be here to argue with. There have been more than 1000 posts on this topic, however if you have something earth shatteringly profound to add at this point then go right ahead. I'm all ears. Simple. And yeah I know we are in the "pit".
And his (ours, now) points is that instead of making comments solely to bitch, you should simply stop posting.
If you don't feel the thread is worth participating in, don't.
Okay, that's fair.
When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realised that the Lord doesn't work that way so I stole one and asked Him to forgive me.
              -Emo Philips

Offline mrbiscoop

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 911
  • Darwins +29/-2
  • Faith is not a virtue!
Re: "...Except when my God is involved"
« Reply #1362 on: September 15, 2010, 08:06:59 PM »
What a disgusting human being. And what a disgusting religion.  :(

Good job showing how utterly selfish and shitheaded Christians can be though. Really. You do Yahweh proud, I'm sure.

And I bet if Jesus were in Nazi Germany,  Biblestudent would totally rat him out to the Nazis to avoid God's Wrath.

And by this logic, Judas was actually the GOOD guy in the bible. Afterall, he told the Truth that condemned Christ!  The Romans ask Judas to point out Jesus, and he does it with a kiss! So, you know, a totally BALLESS way to tell the truth, but Gawd bless 'em for doing it eh!? Am I right or am I right!?:D

Ugh. I'm so greatfull that this line of thinking is isolated to the lunatic fringe. What a shitty world it would be otherwise.
   Very well said!
When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realised that the Lord doesn't work that way so I stole one and asked Him to forgive me.
              -Emo Philips