(July 4, 2013 at 7:41 pm)Inigo Wrote: you now qualify as someone with whom further debate is pointless.

That is the type of thing someone states when he realizes that the veritable crap he is spewing forth is is worth nothing. You need to understand that the problem is not with us, but with you. You have provided absolutely nothing that proves nothing and it will always be nothing because you cannot seem to escape the illogical loop upon which you are stuck where your delusion of logical arguments is more insane than the hallucinations of a chronic drug user.

(July 4, 2013 at 8:03 pm)BrotherNeto Wrote: Thank you Inigo, for proving that you are picking and choosing which explanations/proofs to respond to based on your own preconceptions. And if you do respond it is usually out of context and/or based on definitions which you continue to use incorrectly. Maybe you have the best intentions, who knows?

I think you'll find I have responded to virtually everyone. If someone is not addressing my argument, I tell them so. If someone says an argument has been refuted when it hasn't, I tell them so. If someone says something nonsensical, I tell them so. You, and lots of others, just plain don't like it because you think you're entitled to there being a flaw in my arguments. There may be a flaw, but you're not entitled to there being one. Some arguments just work.

(July 4, 2013 at 8:09 pm)Inigo Wrote: You, and lots of others, just plain don't like it because you think you're entitled to there being a flaw in my arguments.

Here you go just saying shit again. Evidence?

(July 4, 2013 at 8:09 pm)Inigo Wrote: Some arguments just work.

Not when there is an obvious flaw in the argument.

(July 4, 2013 at 1:16 pm)Rahul Wrote:

---

(July 4, 2013 at 4:45 am)FallentoReason Wrote: I also like to see others benefit from my actions at no positive gain of my own. But technically speaking, I wouldn't say I'm altruistic, because seeing others happy *is* my reward, and thus, "altruism" as we know it in its purest form, doesn't apply to me (or others I'd argue, unless they're indifferent to the positive outcome their actions had).

*sighs* Ok, I think the disconnect we are having in this discussion is that you are coming from human based psychology.

I never really cared for that. I had to take a class or two in college but it never really interested me. Don't get me wrong, I understand the benefits to humanity by exploring it. But I feel the same way about advanced mathematics. Very important, not my thing.

My personal interest that I study as a hobby is evolution. I've read a TON of books, studies, papers about evolution. While reading all I can find about evolution I've encountered, quite a bit, discussions about evolutionary psychology.

So I'm coming from a different starting point.

In evolutionary psychology "altruism" is something that an animal does that contributes to the survival of another animal with either a potentially detrimental affect on their own survival or no increased survival benefit at all.

Evolutionary psychology doesn't go into "feelings". So from that aspect, if I give food to a hungry person, or money to a homeless person, I'm deducting my own personal resources to give to another human/animal with no apparent benefit to my own potential survivability or the survivability of my close kin.

If we start talking about human psychology, sure, let's start talking about emotions and feelings.

Feelings don't really crop up when we are talking about why one Rhesus monkey shared food with some other, non related Rhesus monkey with no obvious benefit to itself.

In human psychology I think the literal definition of altruism is just as improbable as the definition of "perfection". It's an abstract concept that doesn't really exist.

---

Ah, yes! That makes perfect sense. Very well put and I'd have to agree 100% on that case with your view.

(July 1, 2013 at 12:36 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:

(July 1, 2013 at 3:44 am)Inigo Wrote: <snippetty snip>
I do not think morality presupposes a morally good god.

In fact I think morality presupposes a vengeful god and I think vengefulness is not praiseworthy

Well that's confusing. After reading all of your posts this is exactly what I thought you were saying was your issue: that reason pointed to an external moral source.

You want to distance yourself from the Christian God because you find that god to be vengeful. I do not. I find that god to be fully just and morally blameless, and therefore subject to your rationale.

(July 1, 2013 at 3:44 am)Inigo Wrote: my argument - which I think challenges atheism - also challenges Christianity and a whole host of other religions.

On the grounds that the Xtian God is immoral? You contradict yourself surely?

(July 1, 2013 at 3:44 am)Inigo Wrote: I think the evidence for the existence of a Christian god just isn't there.

Well that's a separate question. One of knowledge.

(July 1, 2013 at 3:44 am)Inigo Wrote: I should also note that to account for morality's features I have not had to posit a god who has created us, or the universe or anything lik that. What I have had to posit is a god who has power over our welfare in an afterlife, that is all. The god in question, therefore, bears more resemblance to a Norse or Greek god than any more traditional one.

The Christian concept of God, from Aristotle/ Aquinas etc is that his goodness is rooted in creation/ him as first cause. That's what presupposes a perfect morality found in him. We cannot reason from a God capable of evil, as that model would implode with contradictions.

(July 1, 2013 at 3:44 am)Inigo Wrote: But at the end of the day, I am not a man of faith. I am not trying to find arguments for a god that I already believe in. I am just trying to understand what morality is, and my best attempt to do this has led me to posit a god. I'm not happy about this and the worldview that starts to emerge is really rather horrible.

I doubt anyone reasons from a God they already believe in. That would be ludicrous. Faith to you is something to derise, but I wonder if you even know what it means in the Christian sense.
Indeed, you are trying to justify atheism from the POV of already being an atheist.
Being honest with yourself is good enough.

I did not get around to replying to this, so I will address what you say now and apologies for the delay.

You are correct that I think morality is something external and that identifying moral instructions with those of a god respects this feature. I think we both agree that morality requires a god (I think we agree on that, anyway). The disagreement seems to be over whether this god is perfectly good or not.

The first thing I'd say is that it is logically compatible with my view that the god in question is perfectly morally good. This would just mean that the god in question possesses the character traits that she instructs or favours others possessing and will punish for not possessing. For goodness in one's character, on this view, just is to possess character traits that are approved of by this god and that this god resolves to harm us for not possessing. So it is possible that the god required for morality is perfectly morally good.

However, I think there is strong evidence that the god in question is not perfectly morally good. This is because this god needs to be vengeful (her instructions won't have inescapable rational authority otherwise) and so the only way she could be perfectly morally good is if she approved of us being vengeful. So, if she is perfectly morally good we should expect to sense that vengefulness is a good character trait. Yet we do not. Or at least, I don't and I suspect others do not either. We sense, surely, that vengefulness is a vice, not a virtue. So, it seems - if our moral sense is to be believed - that the god does not favour us being vengeful. She is vengeful. But she does not favour us being. (She may not even favour herself being - she may just 'be' vengeful and not herself for it). And that is why I conclude that this god is not perfectly good. She does not possess all of the character traits she approves of us possessing.

YOu say that this will generate contradictions. Perhaps, but I do not see any yet. All I see is a clash with a traditional view about what god is like. The assumption that the source of morality must itself be moral is, I think, one that my view shows to be false. The best, simplest way to account for morality is to identify it with a vengeful god, and if our moral sense is reliable then it seems vengefulness is a vice, not a virtue and thus that morality - or the god whose instructions compose morality - is bad, or a bit bad anyway.

I should stress, I do not think this 'has' to be the case. Rather, it seems reasonable to suppose it so and I cannot think of a good reason to think it is not so.

I should also stress that the implication is not that she is thoroughly bad, just that she is something short of completely good. If our moral sense is reliable then for the most part she wishes us to be benevolent and so on, and it seems reasonable to suppose that she wishes such things because that's what she is like as well. But this does not strictly follow - we do not always wish others to be like ourselves. For example, I possess a penis yet I do not wish my girlfriend to have one, indeed I positively approve of her lack of one. (that's was a lie to illustrate a point: I think it'd be great if she had one) Hence, the fact she - the god of morality, that is - disapproves of vengefulness is consistent with her being vengeful.

(July 5, 2013 at 12:48 am)Inigo Wrote: The first thing I'd say is that it is logically compatible with my view that the god in question is perfectly morally good. This would just mean that the god in question possesses the character traits that she instructs or favours others possessing and will punish for not possessing. For goodness in one's character, on this view, just is to possess character traits that are approved of by this god and that this god resolves to harm us for not possessing. So it is possible that the god required for morality is perfectly morally good.

---

However, I think there is strong evidence that the god in question is not perfectly morally good. This is because this god needs to be vengeful (her instructions won't have inescapable rational authority otherwise) and so the only way she could be perfectly morally good is if she approved of us being vengeful. So, if she is perfectly morally good we should expect to sense that vengefulness is a good character trait. Yet we do not. Or at least, I don't and I suspect others do not either. We sense, surely, that vengefulness is a vice, not a virtue. So, it seems - if our moral sense is to be believed - that the god does not favour us being vengeful. She is vengeful. But she does not favour us being. (She may not even favour herself being - she may just 'be' vengeful and not herself for it). And that is why I conclude that this god is not perfectly good. She does not possess all of the character traits she approves of us possessing.

---

I would suggest that you've just added a second and wholly conflicting definition of morality. If "morality" is an agent whose instructions are inescapably rationally compelling, then the only way that this god him or herself can be morally good or bad is if there is an agent above him or her whose instructions are inescapably rationally compelling. What exactly would this uber god hold over the lesser god? You seem to have replaced your prior conception with a set which includes moral consistency, the lack of hypocrisy, as a necessary moral standard; however, consistency is a property of value (and meaning) to beings who are subject to moral instructions or commandments, which your god is not.

By the way, please stop redefining words at whim simply because you cannot be bothered to be literate. A theist is someone who believes in a god. Period.

You sound young. Are you a college student?

I think 'moral' describes the Xtian God accurately. 'Just' I think also, together with loving. Those form the core attributes.

God couldn't be just if God didn't enforce justice. 'Vengeful' suggests more that just desert to me. I assume this is your meaning too, and I see no reason to ascribe that attribute to God. I see no justification to make that leap from what you've said.

So 'hurt' has to exist for justice (/morality) to be true. /Hurt isn't morally wrong.
The attraction of God is towards morality. Morality is fully realised in God.

---

@apoplexia

You seem to be consistently missing the point that God -is- the moral agent in what Inigo is saying

(July 5, 2013 at 1:29 am)apophenia Wrote:

(July 5, 2013 at 12:48 am)Inigo Wrote: The first thing I'd say is that it is logically compatible with my view that the god in question is perfectly morally good. This would just mean that the god in question possesses the character traits that she instructs or favours others possessing and will punish for not possessing. For goodness in one's character, on this view, just is to possess character traits that are approved of by this god and that this god resolves to harm us for not possessing. So it is possible that the god required for morality is perfectly morally good.

---

However, I think there is strong evidence that the god in question is not perfectly morally good. This is because this god needs to be vengeful (her instructions won't have inescapable rational authority otherwise) and so the only way she could be perfectly morally good is if she approved of us being vengeful. So, if she is perfectly morally good we should expect to sense that vengefulness is a good character trait. Yet we do not. Or at least, I don't and I suspect others do not either. We sense, surely, that vengefulness is a vice, not a virtue. So, it seems - if our moral sense is to be believed - that the god does not favour us being vengeful. She is vengeful. But she does not favour us being. (She may not even favour herself being - she may just 'be' vengeful and not herself for it). And that is why I conclude that this god is not perfectly good. She does not possess all of the character traits she approves of us possessing.

---

I would suggest that you've just added a second and wholly conflicting definition of morality. If "morality" is an agent whose instructions are inescapably rationally compelling, then the only way that this god him or herself can be morally good or bad is if there is an agent above him or her whose instructions are inescapably rationally compelling. What exactly would this uber god hold over the lesser god? You seem to have replaced your prior conception with a set which includes moral consistency, the lack of hypocrisy, as a necessary moral standard; however, consistency is a property of value (and meaning) to beings who are subject to moral instructions or commandments, which your god is not.

By the way, please stop redefining words at whim simply because you cannot be bothered to be literate. A theist is someone who believes in a god. Period.

You sound young. Are you a college student?

No, I am not a college student.

I have not redefined anything. I said that a 'good' character trait on this view refers to the property of being something the god will harm us (us - not her) for failing to possess. Hence why we have inescapable reason to cultivate such character traits.
If she possesses those character traits then she possesses character traits that 'we' have inescapable reason to cultivate. In other words, she possesses 'good' character traits and is therefore morally good.

Stop telling me to use theism in a particular way when the way I am using it is historically accurate and perfectly acceptable. A 'theistic' god is taken by those who have been properly educated to mean a god who possesses the 3 attributes of omniscience, omnipotence and perfect moral goodness. And a 'theist' to those of us who know this, is someone who believes in the existence of such a god.

I really don't care one tiny weeny bit how you use the word. I'm telling you how I use it so that you understand what I mean. If you don't like it, deal with it.

This thread is hilarious, all the false assertions are driving me crazy.

Concepts are based on 'unreal' things all the time.
1:The concept of god is based on something unreal
2:The concept of a unicorn

Doesn't mean these things can't help out a society. But unicorns are just, well they are magical.
Morality is based on the fact a society wants to survive and have strength. It is based off a fact. A real thing. There is no need for an external intelligent agent to instruct me of this fact.