Boobies make the world go 'round.

(March 11, 2016 at 3:46 am)robvalue Wrote: In my defence, what I actually said was, "[This is] rape apologetics". It was in regard to specific things CL had put forward as her beliefs. Those beliefs were making excuses for rapes occurring. So in this way, it was accurate. I didn't actually call her a "rape apologist", as in someone who regularly defends rape. She was partaking in excusing the act, while simultaneously making it clear she was completely against the act. Hence the contradiction.

In retrospect I wish I hadn't used the term, as I realize it sounds more accusatory than it needed to be.

Anyhow back on topic, anyone have a comment about my post?

(March 10, 2016 at 7:24 pm)robvalue Wrote: Getting back on topic:

I'll tell you the really pointless thing about objective morality claims: they don't achieve anything.

I am proud to own my subjective morality as my opinion, and I back up those opinions with arguments. This means that I am sometimes able to win others round to my point of view, and to what I think is right.

However, if I went to try and change someone's mind and I instead claim my morality is objectively superior to theirs, for whatever reason, then that's not going to achieve anything. If people and societies with very different values are ever going to reach some sort of compromise, it won't be by either (or both) sides claiming to simply "be right". It will be by reasoned arguments about what the goals of morality are, what they should be, and how we can go about achieving them.

Standing in pious judgement does nothing but puff up your own ego.

Yes, Rob. You're right; I'm sorry. That was an example of me participating with my "post first, think later" function on!

And yes, I agree. Objective morality, real or not, seems utterly pointless.

I'm not quite sure what you're apologising for, but you are forgiven anyway

Thank you. Yes, if you can't use "objective morality" to win someone round to your way of thinking, then what good is it? That's what I want to know.

What is the point of it? The only "examples" I've ever been given are actually shocking ways in which religious dogma fucks up morality.

Some atheists have defended the idea too, and I can't understand what they are talking about either. And no practical examples. The whole idea crumples when you have two competing factors, between which a compromise must be made; otherwise known as "life".

I've always gotten the impression that moral objectivists just like to think that when you make a moral pronouncement that there is more to it than you shouting that you prefer X sort of behavior. To capture the full bodied flavor of moral condemnation they find it necessary (apparently) to be shouting something more like "you did heinous act X which is an offense to gawd on high". Talk about calling it the way you wish for it.

Is "free will" a proper defense against the problem of evil. Christians say that it is. However it's not entirely clear why. If it's a good that justifies the acceptance of some evil, then that runs into LadyforCamus' objection. The other possibility I see is that by allowing free will, humans become the responsible party in any evil transaction and it's no longer God's duty to stop them, as doing so would be an unreasonable restraint on their free will. However, God denies us certain actions by design, why would disallowing rape, either by intervention or design, be an unreasonable restraint? Is free will not free will if you are denied the option of evil?

Is there a version of this argument from free will which lets God off the hook.

(As an observation on the thread, I did not clearly see why people were claiming C_L was complicitous in rape until LfC clarified her objection to the line of reasoning at my request. So it's entirely possible that C_L simply didn't understand why people were leveling their charges at her.)

No, free will is bollocks and I've never heard anything remotely approaching an argument from it.

Just saying "God gave us free will" is about as useful as saying "the man gave me a lollipop after killing my parents". If you can't explain why free will excludes God from responsibility, then it's worthless.

It amounts to special pleading, every time. God can do whatever the fuck he wants, end of story. If you believe that, free will or any other argument is completely irrelevant.

Of course, God can do whatever he wants, so we are told. But that doesn't mean he should. Any situation where anyone is accountable to no-one is dangerous.

CL said the free will of the rapist is important, and God finds that more important than overriding it to stop rapes. This makes it more important than the free will of, and damage done to, the victim.

God of Mr. Hanky Wrote:

Mister Agenda Wrote:It's like you're responding to different posts than the ones you're quoting. Posts that say what you'd like to imagine the person would have said so you can be outraged about it.

It was a joke, Captain Pompousass!

Sorry, it was so much like your other responses to people's posts that didn't seem to relate to anything they actually said that I thought this was more of the same. Or are they all jokes?

God of Mr. Hanky Wrote:

Mister Agenda Wrote:I know you protest your innocence. I still call 'em like I see 'em.

No, Green Ghoulface, I do not protest my innocence. I'm not on trial for anything, and and I sure as fuck am not answerable to you!

No kidding.

God of Mr. Hanky Wrote:

Whateverist the White Wrote:I understand completely for some its black people for others its homosexuals.  For you guys its just believers.  Haters got to hate.

Strawmen, you too are good at shitting out, Whateverist! If you don't have a negative attitude toward theistic beliefs too, then I have to ask what are you here for as an atheist (or for that matter, how can you even be an atheist)? I don't hate CL, nor do I hate anyone just for sharing her beliefs or similar beliefs. But she opened up a can of worms by starting this thread with her OP, and we were entitled to respond as we saw it.

Seriously, you really aren't doing CL, nor this forum any good by protecting her against criticism when she has it coming!

And we're entitled to respond to your posts as we see them. See how that works?

(March 11, 2016 at 10:01 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: Is "free will" a proper defense against the problem of evil. Christians say that it is. However it's not entirely clear why. If it's a good that justifies the acceptance of some evil, then that runs into LadyforCamus' objection. The other possibility I see is that by allowing free will, humans become the responsible party in any evil transaction and it's no longer God's duty to stop them, as doing so would be an unreasonable restraint on their free will. However, God denies us certain actions by design, why would disallowing rape, either by intervention or design, be an unreasonable restraint? Is free will not free will if you are denied the option of evil?

Is there a version of this argument from free will which lets God off the hook.

(As an observation on the thread, I did not clearly see why people were claiming C_L was complicitous in rape until LfC clarified her objection to the line of reasoning at my request. So it's entirely possible that C_L simply didn't understand why people were leveling their charges at her.)

Yeah, I definitely think a misunderstanding on both ends was part of it, Jor. But, I admit I got unnecessarily aggressive in my language at certain points in the discussion. Angry due to subject matter which is not CL's fault because I don't think she was the one who even brought it up, and angry/frustrated at not being able to understand a line of reasoning. Which always irritates me.

I'm not sure there is a way to let God off the hook here. As you and others have mentioned, our free will is restrained in so many other ways. And FFS, being omniscient and all he theoretically could see we would end up as barbaric fucktards in our current state of design.

Why not use his omnipotence to, as you said, design us as benevolent creatures without violent impulses? I think we COULD still be considered as having free will in such a case. Our will simply would not include desires to physically harm each other. It's certainly a more palatable alternative for the free will proponents to consider, as opposed to God literally freezing someone's limbs to prevent them from committing an evil act.

P.s. My autocorrect highlighted "fucktards" as a misspelled word, and corrected it to "fucktarded." I think Evie has been messing with my iPad when I'm not looking!