(November 11, 2020 at 11:15 pm)MilesAbbott81 Wrote:

(November 11, 2020 at 11:04 pm)Eleven Wrote: @MilesAbbott81

How about you read this?

About the Holy Bible

I read a few paragraphs, over the course of which I saw not a single valid criticism. I would be happy to point out all of the obviously ignorant statements in it, but the list would take far too long. I suggest you find some better material; I'm sure there's some out there.

You're free to peruse the rest of his agnostic related works.

(November 11, 2020 at 10:46 pm)MilesAbbott81 Wrote:

(November 11, 2020 at 9:34 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Excellent, and how can you be held responsible for what you cannot control, again?  

Well, you're assuming that you shouldn't be held responsible for what you can't control. Says who? Perhaps we shouldn't throw insane murderers into asylums, but let them roam the streets...? I mean, if they can't tell right from wrong, then why hold them responsible at all? Let them be free!

 Says you, apparently, but while we intuitively understand and it is in no way controversial how a moral agent with a moral choice can be held morally responsible...right or wrong...it remains a complete mystery as to how we can be held morally responsible for what we can't control, when we have no choice, or when we are -not- moral agents.

Are you responsible for what a god does or doesn't do to me?  Are you responsible for whether I am or am not incoherent?  Are you ultimately responsible for anything...and how? Maybe you should be allowed to roam the streets (particularly if you not bullshitting us when you tell us that your comments about the nature of man are an accurate description of your experience) - but not letting you roam the streets and holding you morally responsible for this or that are not the same thing.

Quote:Can you give me a reason why you shouldn't suffer for committing an act of rape, particularly if God is trying to teach you that it's wrong and will only bring suffering upon you? I mean, you know it's wrong, but you do it anyway, does it make sense to you for God to just let it go, to not punish it at all? Who is He supposed to punish, Himself? Why, if He meant it for good? And the criminal, why not, if he meant it for evil? After all, he did the crime, right? Should his uncontrollable compulsion exonerate him, does it change the fact that he did the crime? Should he remain free, to do as he pleases? That would thwart God's plan. Who are you to determine the rules in a world run by God?

Evil doesn't exist for its own sake, but to accomplish God's purposes. If God doesn't punish evil, then it makes no sense for it to exist, because no lesson can ever be learned if wrongness isn't addressed with consequence.

You want some easy, cut and dry answer when the issue is more complicated than that, and if you're honestly assessing it you can admit that. I won't hold my breath.

An honest assessment of the moral field doesn't lead me to anything even remotely resembling the idea that people can be morally responsible for what they do not control.  That is, after all, why I keep asking you how that works. We can be practically responsible, or instrumentally responsible. I can kick a can that sets into motion a chain of events that leads to the annihilation of all human life. Instrumental responsibilities, like instrumental goods, are not moral responsibilities, or moral goods. I can kick that can, and it can lead to complete annihilation (and kicking the can can be good-for annihilation, and annihilation can be good-for producing a human free world), but how am I morally responsible? By what theory? By what means? By what justification? By what tic or facet or mystery of reality? I couldn't have known it would do so...and can't even imagine it, physically incapable of imaging how my kicking a can would do that. I certainly don't intend, in the kicking of a can, to annihilate all human life. If I also have no choice.....what's left? What possible avenue of moral responsibility remains? What hypothetical chain of desert?

Gonna get around to it or not? I understand moral responsibility in the case of a moral agent with a moral choice. Help me to understand the moral responsibility of a non moral agent with no moral choice.

(November 11, 2020 at 11:17 pm)Eleven Wrote:

(November 11, 2020 at 11:15 pm)MilesAbbott81 Wrote: I read a few paragraphs, over the course of which I saw not a single valid criticism. I would be happy to point out all of the obviously ignorant statements in it, but the list would take far too long. I suggest you find some better material; I'm sure there's some out there.

You're free to peruse the rest of his agnostic related works.

Your materials are fine Eleven 

---

(November 11, 2020 at 11:35 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote:

(November 11, 2020 at 10:46 pm)MilesAbbott81 Wrote: Well, you're assuming that you shouldn't be held responsible for what you can't control. Says who? Perhaps we shouldn't throw insane murderers into asylums, but let them roam the streets...? I mean, if they can't tell right from wrong, then why hold them responsible at all? Let them be free!

 Says you, apparently, but while we intuitively understand and it is in no way controversial how a moral agent with a moral choice can be held morally responsible...right or wrong...it remains a complete mystery as to how we can be held morally responsible for what we can't control, when we have no choice, or when we are -not- moral agents.

Are you responsible for what a god does or doesn't do to me?  Are you responsible for whether I am or am not incoherent?  Are you ultimately responsible for anything...and how?  Maybe you should be allowed to roam the streets (particularly if you not bullshitting us when you tell us that your comments about the nature of man are an accurate description of your experience) - but not letting you roam the streets and holding you morally responsible for this or that are not the same thing.

Quote:Can you give me a reason why you shouldn't suffer for committing an act of rape, particularly if God is trying to teach you that it's wrong and will only bring suffering upon you? I mean, you know it's wrong, but you do it anyway, does it make sense to you for God to just let it go, to not punish it at all? Who is He supposed to punish, Himself? Why, if He meant it for good? And the criminal, why not, if he meant it for evil? After all, he did the crime, right? Should his uncontrollable compulsion exonerate him, does it change the fact that he did the crime? Should he remain free, to do as he pleases? That would thwart God's plan. Who are you to determine the rules in a world run by God?

Evil doesn't exist for its own sake, but to accomplish God's purposes. If God doesn't punish evil, then it makes no sense for it to exist, because no lesson can ever be learned if wrongness isn't addressed with consequence.

You want some easy, cut and dry answer when the issue is more complicated than that, and if you're honestly assessing it you can admit that. I won't hold my breath.

An honest assessment of the moral field doesn't lead me to anything even remotely resembling the idea that people can be morally responsible for what they do not control.  That is, after all, why I keep asking you how that works.  We can be practically responsible, or instrumentally responsible.  I can kick a can that sets into motion a chain of events that leads to the annihilation of all human life.  Instrumental responsibilities, like instrumental goods, are not moral responsibilities, or moral goods.  I can kick that can, and it can lead to complete annihilation (and kicking the can can be good-for annihilation, and annihilation can be good-for producing a human free world), but how am I morally responsible?  By what theory?  By what means?  By what justification?  By what tic or facet or mystery of reality?  I couldn't have known it would do so...and can't even imagine it, physically incapable of imaging how my kicking a can would do that.  I certainly don't intend, in the kicking of a can, to annihilate all human life.  If I also have no choice.....what's left?  What possible avenue of moral responsibility remains?  What hypothetical chain of desert?

Gonna get around to it or not?  I understand moral responsibility in the case of a moral agent with a moral choice.  Help me to understand the moral responsibility of a non moral agent with no moral choice.

Not mention there is a difference between locking someone up because they are too dangerous to themselves and others to be allowed to roam free, And locking them up because we hold them responsible and are punishing them for their actions.

We might also ask how one learns to choose good with suffering the consequences of not choosing to do good? If I cant choose good, then suffering wont help me learn to do that. I can't do it...or I can learn to do it. A god might grace this or that - but that's a god doing stuff (stuff through us, kinky) and, as our friend insisted, a god gets that credit.

If the existence of evil were a problem if it lacked instructive value, then that would be a very serious problem indeed. For his stupid fucking god. Either god can't get right, or our christian friend aint right. Let's see who he blames it on this time.

My moneys on god. God fucked it all up for him, somehow.

(November 12, 2020 at 12:00 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: We might also ask how one learns to choose good with suffering the consequences of not choosing to do good?  If I cant choose good, then suffering wont help me learn to do that.  I can't do it...or I can learn to do it.  A god might grace this or that - but that's a god doing stuff (stuff through us, kinky) and, as our friend insisted, a god gets that credit.

Suffering is a very silly method of teaching in general, And a god that needs to act through us like a puppeteer hardly sounds good.

Beating my children mercilessly won't teach them what's wrong about rubbing shit in each others faces? The hell you say!

I suppose that if I believed that somebody's hand just had to be up my ass to explain a given set of behaviors, I'd like to pretend that it was a gods hand up my ass. Not Steve's. We all know how Steve is a corrupted institution... and all that jazz.

(November 12, 2020 at 12:16 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Beating my children mercilessly won't teach them what's wrong about rubbing shit in each others faces?  The hell you say!

Indeed you mean being needlessly cruel to an evil puppet won't make it act like a saint. Shocker.....

What omniscient master of the created universe could have possibly foretold such a strange chain of non reactions!

(November 12, 2020 at 12:20 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: What omniscient master of the created universe could have possibly foretold such a strange chain of non reactions!

But Grand how dare you to question god. Who are you yada yada yada (browbeat because the theist can't provide a real justification and thinks indignation is a substitute )

I think that's where all of our christian friends fail, ultimately. Atheists aren't questioning gods, we don't believe that there are gods to question. We're questioning people who tell us about gods. Those same people tell us that everyone always gets everything wrong. Meaningfully, and even morally, wrong.

It's hard to work out whether they want us to believe them, or argue against some ephemeral point they're making. Okay, you're a human so you can't get right. The evidence of you not getting it right stands all by itself. Therefore you're...totally right?

I'm obviously missing some step that Miles can explain to me, because he does too possess that explanation, and can too express it. He's done it many times..and the fact that I can't see it just proves how god cursed I am. I can't even notice the missing numbers in the responses where he absolutely did explain any of this - which I physically can't see and am emotionally incapable of caring about.

Imagine all of the solid gold brilliance that he's splattered all over the pages that no one can see, on account of heart hardening and eye blinding. It's a real shame. Who the fuck did that and how can we lay hands on that asshole?