My views on objective morality

[Mister Agenda]

Human being set rules for their pets and livestock that don't apply to them. It would be silly to make a rule about the dog not being on the bed that applies to you, too. Even if you consider your dog  a person; they're not your equal and don't get to hold you to the same standard to which you hold them.

Are you being serious? There's a huge difference between sleeping in a bed and genocide. You cannot equate the two. Also, you can set a rule for a dog but it it's not morally wrong for the dog to run away and say to hell with you and your rules.

I'm not going back to the drawing board to come up with an analogy more to your liking if this one is too hard for you because I didn't try to find something morally equivalent to genocide to make a fairly simple point. If you don't have the imagination to do so yourself, feel free to continue to not get the point.

[Mister Agenda]

I tend to agree...but some people had left off and you two were among those still going after her. When you come across someone being beaten, you step in, even if someone else started the beating.

Oh please, LFC is not responsible for anyone on this forum but herself and she has been nothing but respectful in the midst of a very heated debate.

If you assert it, it must be true, and she was wrong to apologize for her behavior. BAD LfC, for apologizing when you had nothing to apologize for!

[Mister Agenda]

Objective does not mean 'absolute'. Two things can be objectively evil, and one of them can objectively be more evil than the other.

I don't think so.  In the case of a rape allowed by God, it must by definition of God be serving a greater good.  It is therefore an act which is allowed with both the intent and the effect of doing good.  It is a good act.

For something to be called objectively evil, it would have to be evil regardless of context.  And I don't think there's any evil, no matter how much we despise it, that cannot be thought of as good given the right (albeit highly unlikely) context.

Yes, it would be a good act. No, that does not mean raping isn't evil.

I'm not familiar with the definition of 'objective' in which context is irrelevant.

[Mister Agenda]

I tend to agree...but some people had left off and you two were among those still going after her. When you come across someone being beaten, you step in, even if someone else started the beating.

As atheists, some of us are much better at creating strawmen than the theists - CL was NOT being beaten, so knock it off with that bullshit already, Green Lightbulb! Just because it's ugly and somebody is crying doesn't mean there's a good reason for it, and we were just trying to make her understand why one like Rythm would say what really was a bit harsh, although in a very important way true.

I know you protest your innocence. I still call 'em like I see 'em.

[Losty]

Are you being serious? There's a huge difference between sleeping in a bed and genocide. You cannot equate the two. Also, you can set a rule for a dog but it it's not morally wrong for the dog to run away and say to hell with you and your rules.

I'm not going back to the drawing board to come up with an analogy more to your liking if this one is too hard for you because I didn't try to find something morally equivalent to genocide to make a fairly simple point. If you don't have the imagination to do so yourself, feel free to continue to not get the point.

Ooooh the snark. I'm so hurt. Sniffle. No, I get the point you are trying to make. I just think it's a stupid point. I never claimed to be the almighty authority on good and evil. If something is all good and all powerful and the definition of objective morality, they need to be held to a higher standard. Not a lower one.

[Mister Agenda]

I'm not going back to the drawing board to come up with an analogy more to your liking if this one is too hard for you because I didn't try to find something morally equivalent to genocide to make a fairly simple point. If you don't have the imagination to do so yourself, feel free to continue to not get the point.

Ooooh the snark. I'm so hurt. Sniffle. No, I get the point you are trying to make. I just think it's a stupid point. I never claimed to be the almighty authority on good and evil. If something is all good and all powerful and the definition of objective morality, they need to be held to a higher standard. Not a lower one.

The way we hold adult humans to the same standards of behavior as children and animals? An adult human is merely more powerful and more knowledgeable, but they can still act in ways that are ultimately for the benefit of a child or animal that the child or animal reasonably perceives as malicious. With a God, there may be considerations that we are incapable of imagining or comprehending. I can't give an example of that (by definition), but I can propose that some version of God sees the vicissitudes of this life as transitory and brief compared to an eternal afterlife. Like getting a shot, all things considered.

Very few theologians include the ability to flatten out contradictions in their definition of omnipotence.

I don't think the God of theodicy is a coherent concept. You pretty much have to choose at least one leg of the theodic tripod to shorten. Drich is happy to saw off the omnibenevolence leg to keep omnipotence and omniscience. CL holds on to that one and insists that there must be some kind of limit to what God can do to reconcile the existence of evil. CL doesn't believe in the God unlimited by anything that you insist on.  She doesn't bear the burden to defend a version of God that isn't the one she believes in.

[Losty]

Ooooh the snark. I'm so hurt. Sniffle. No, I get the point you are trying to make. I just think it's a stupid point. I never claimed to be the almighty authority on good and evil. If something is all good and all powerful and the definition of objective morality, they need to be held to a higher standard. Not a lower one.

The way we hold adult humans to the same standards of behavior as children and animals? An adult human is merely more powerful and more knowledgeable, but they can still act in ways that are ultimately for the benefit of a child or animal that the child or animal reasonably perceives as malicious. With a God, there may be considerations that we are incapable of imagining or comprehending. I can't give an example of that (by definition), but I can propose that some version of God sees the vicissitudes of this life as transitory and brief compared to an eternal afterlife. Like getting a shot, all things considered.

Very few theologians include the ability to flatten out contradictions in their definition of omnipotence.

I don't think the God of theodicy is a coherent concept. You pretty much have to choose at least one leg of the theodic tripod to shorten. Drich is happy to saw off the omnibenevolence leg to keep omnipotence and omniscience. CL holds on to that one and insists that there must be some kind of limit to what God can do to reconcile the existence of evil. CL doesn't believe in the God unlimited by anything that you insist on.  She doesn't bear the burden to defend a version of God that isn't the one she believes in.

I wasn't talking to CL though D:

I'm sorry I honestly didn't realize you were arguing from her standpoint.

This thread, man. I totally get what you're saying, and for me I choose to saw off the god altogether. In my mind it makes more sense to accept that there is no God than to have to make all these adjustments for him. I get this argument a lot from a friend of mine. That we are like children recieving a spanking from God. It seems bad to us but it's really for the best and we just aren't mature enough to see it yet.

It seems impossible to argue against that.

My mind tells me that what I've been through, there's no greater good or benefit that would ever make me allow something like that in anyone's life. Not my worst enemy. There's nothing that I ever could have done that would warrant such a punishment. Your argument with the shot just makes it worse because it's not a punishment but just what happens to be best for me.

All I can say to that is that if by some chance there is a God and it thinks these things are what's best for me, I want nothing to do with it.

[Ryantology]

Justice doesn't matter here? Good, then in that case we don't need any mods!

I can say from experience, moderators are in place to ensure that the flow of discussion isn't disrupted by people misbehaving. It's a bit much to think of forum rules as 'justice', as they are an analog at best for that concept.

Honest to serious fuck, if we didn't take the injustices of religion very seriously, then we'd all be somewhere discussing Justin Bieber, or at a book club.

Take it seriously. You should. But, when the tone gets personal and insulting, your message gets lost. It's no longer about combating the injustices of religion. It's about browbeating another individual until they shut up.

You can attack a person aggressively for holding a viewpoint, but you're not likely to change their mind doing so. The viewpoint is the actual problem, why not focus on that?

[abaris]

The viewpoint is the actual problem, why not focus on that?

Especially when it's wrong in the first place. As I already said and Mister Agenda pointed out, Drippy believes in an entirely different god than CL. Drippy's god is a vengeful beast, as is business as usual with evengelicals and he has proven time and time again, that he just loves the OT. CL's god is benign and she doesn't put much stock in the OT.

The irony lies in both starting out with the same scripted god. But that doesn't change the fact that it's entirely pointless to try and nail CL to a book she doesn't believe in in the first place.

[robvalue]

No one was trying to do that (as far as I'm aware). We were responding to actual comments she volunteered about her beliefs. We weren't engineering scenarios.