My views on objective morality

[God of Mr. Hanky]

If we were to never know evil, then we would not be automatons (which would make god guilty of slavery) we would simply live in a world where no evil exists - in other words, there would be no evil just like there are no flying pink unicorns. But the decision, if we are to accept this god, was that god's, and the shitty mess which we're left with is his own.

Humans that were incapable of doing acts for which they have the physical ability to do are as good as automatons. We would be more robotic than human. We would be like a robot who is given arms for carrying things, but programmed to only use those arms in certain ways. Humans have arms, but nothing in our mind or nature restricts what we can do with them, other than physical restrictions. We can use our arms to help, and we can use our arms to hurt. Robots can only do the former.

Sure, we'd still have free choice to do good things, but being mentally incapable of doing bad things whilst physically able to do them would be a massive restriction, and would destroy free will.

Free will only exists when humans can choose whether to do things for which they have the physical ability to do.

Then maybe we wouldn't have arms and legs - some animals do survive without them. Just as humans cannot physically fly like birds, an intelligent sponge cannot walk on land, nor swim through the water like a fish. Better would be the evolution of (whoops, I should say "endowment" for this argument) of more consistent neural hardware among our species which regulates the ego, aka consciense. This argument holds when you believe we were actually designed, and of course more so when we are said to have been created personally by said god. We would theoretically conceptualize evil, but none of us would have the desire to do it. Why should we understand it any deeper when none of that is actually happening?

[Whateverist]

Well, this "other world" is made up. So it may be of practical help as a coping mechanism sure, but it's not real. Theists think it is real, in contradiction with observable facts. And the real one is real too, even though they both can't be.

If you can actually learn things reliably, about anything, you're using some version of science. Otherwise, it's bollocks.

All of literature and poetry .. just a comforting lie?

[robvalue]

Yes. You're with me or against me. Science, or nothing. I will destroy everything else!

Which is nothing. Nothing to destroy.

So I've already won. Hahahahahahahaha!

[Whateverist]

It must really be a herculean labor keeping the world free of non-sciency bollocks. We appreciate your service.

[robvalue]

You're welcome!

Of course, no one values imagination and expression more than me. Except perhaps my wife, and some of her friends. Oh yes, and captain Johnson. Come to think of it, most people value imagination and expression more than me, but that's besides the point. I can still appreciate them without believing they are literally real.

[robvalue]

The big problem is theists generally claim to know an awful lot about God, right up until the point where there's a massive contradiction. Then it's beyond comprehension.

They don't know anything about him, should he exist. It's just silly stories.

It is only silly stories so long as the only possible use of a story is to convey actual history.  But who believes that?

That's the irony. The actual meaning of the story, where there is one, is often lost on the theist but not on the atheist. The theist is desparate for theological meaning, and so misses the social commentary perspective.

[Joods]

If God prevented all rapes, then we'd never know the evil that was rape. This argument would then be "why does God allow murder?". So then, God prevents all murders, and we never know the evil that was murder. Then the argument would be "why does God allow theft?". So then, God prevents all thefts, and we never know the evil that was theft.

So eventually you get to a point where God is preventing all evil, and humans are incapable of doing evil, which means we are perfect. There are multiple problems with this in terms of Christian doctrine:

1) If we're incapable of doing evil, then you could argue that we don't have free will, but rather limited will. That goes directly against God's plan for us, because he created us to specifically have free will.

2) Accordingly to Christian doctrine, there was a time when there was no murder / rape / theft. It was in the garden of Eden, and humans basically fucked that one up by eating the fruit, and thus losing their innocence and creating our abilities to murder / rape / steal.

3) If God is preventing all evil, then there would be no point in worshiping God, no point in heaven (because we'd practically already be there), etc. The point of life according to the Christian doctrine is that we suffer through it, and if you please God, you get rewarded. Again, this is based on the fact that God wanted us to have free will so we wouldn't be mindless drones, but because we abused our free will to create evil in the world, he came up with this redemption plan.

Therefore, my conclusion is that God totally set us up, knowing full well that we are inherent failures.  Which makes him a stinky, lousy, stupid-pants meanie in my opinion.  And also kind of a weirdo.  

*crosses arms and sits back*

Not to mention extremely narcissistic. If he's real, he should be the poster child for narcissism but alas, we'll never get a good photo of the guy.

[robvalue]

Well, quite. Trying to convince me that dick-for-brains is real is the last thing you want to do, if you want me in your religion.

[abaris]

Begs the question, which god is all of the above mentioned. Even among the 40.000+ denominations of christianity, they can't make their minds up. We have both extremes right here. Drippy, who constantly keeps arguing for a vengeful, retarded and violent bastard and CL or Kingpin, who view god as a benign influence.

So you have to adress them as individuals and not throw the bible at them, regardless of circumstances. Yes, it's OK to argue, but it's not OK to broadbrush them in a way we want be broadbrushed when the tables are turned.

[Kiekeben]

Actually, I never really considered CL as having that position. The problem was with what she said, and she did repeat it so that that there could be no mistaking it, page after page after page. She and other Xtians just don't understand the very insensitive implications of what they say when they say that, and that's what I was trying to help point out to her! The problem is supporting a god who has all the power which is possible and impossible, but chooses to do nothing about a crime which he sits by and watches, in that very alley where the crime is happening, and probably beats off to it. When a human does that it's called being an accessory to the crime.

If God prevented all rapes, then we'd never know the evil that was rape. This argument would then be "why does God allow murder?". So then, God prevents all murders, and we never know the evil that was murder. Then the argument would be "why does God allow theft?". So then, God prevents all thefts, and we never know the evil that was theft.

So eventually you get to a point where God is preventing all evil, and humans are incapable of doing evil, which means we are perfect. There are multiple problems with this in terms of Christian doctrine:

1) If we're incapable of doing evil, then you could argue that we don't have free will, but rather limited will. That goes directly against God's plan for us, because he created us to specifically have free will.

2) Accordingly to Christian doctrine, there was a time when there was no murder / rape / theft. It was in the garden of Eden, and humans basically fucked that one up by eating the fruit, and thus losing their innocence and creating our abilities to murder / rape / steal.

3) If God is preventing all evil, then there would be no point in worshiping God, no point in heaven (because we'd practically already be there), etc. The point of life according to the Christian doctrine is that we suffer through it, and if you please God, you get rewarded. Again, this is based on the fact that God wanted us to have free will so we wouldn't be mindless drones, but because we abused our free will to create evil in the world, he came up with this redemption plan.

And why should anyone agree that that is a good plan? What would be wrong with God simply creating heaven? 

Speaking of which, is there free will in heaven? If there is, then there can be free will without the bad consequences (all you need is a place where there can be no physical or emotional harm, and there you go - assuming fw makes sense, individuals can still act freely, but no one gets hurt). And if there isn't fw in heaven, then why is fw important in the first place?

Lastly, even if there is fw (here on earth), I for one have no desire - and am sure I never will have the desire - to, say, kill an innocent person. Nevertheless, on your view, I still presumably have fw. So why couldn't God have created only humans who have no bad desires?