My views on objective morality

[God of Mr. Hanky]

For the problem of evil (and let me state outright that the theodic version of God is rife with its own problems), we are bringing in an entity that is, or very nearly is, omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent. If you accept the definition for the sake of argument, it necessarily follows that there must be an overriding reason to allow evil, or such a being wouldn't allow it. You can argue, I'm pretty sure successfully, that our state of affairs is inconsistent with a being that literally can do anything, literally knows everything, and would never allow any evil it could prevent. And believers usually dial one or more of their version of God's attributes down to account for this. But it's not special pleading to claim that a being so far beyond mortal limitations that sets all the rules can't be judged by mortal standards.

Absolute bullshit! The greater an entity, and the closer to perfection he is said to be, the higher the standard which he should be expected to live up to. If humans are held liable for accessory to crimes, then the gods of humans are that much more liable for their complicity in them. The only defense which the Xtian god's followers can offer as an excuse is the absolute bullshit "Free Will" argument, and that's just shameful special pleading, plus ad hoc garbage.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

It is after all a beautifully hilarious word. All it lacks is a pat of butter and some blueberries on the side.

Mmmmm....buttered cunt muffins.

Ew, lol.

Yummy!

[robvalue]

I have a situation, although contrived, in which I consider rape to not be immoral.

Someone is randomly kidnapped, in a way they could never have foreseen. They are then given drugs which screws with them so badly that they think rape is a good thing to do. Then they go and rape someone while under this influence.

I would not consider this act of rape immoral.

[bennyboy]

I have a situation, although contrived, in which I consider rape to not be immoral.

Someone is randomly kidnapped, in a way they could never have foreseen. They are then given drugs which screws with them so badly that they think rape is a good thing to do. Then they go and rape someone while under this influence.

I would not consider this act of rape immoral.

Aren't very many rapes or other crimes mitigated by brain chemistry?  Does it really matter whether it was injected by ISIS, or released by a malfunctioning organ into the bloodstream?

[God of Mr. Hanky]

Well, fuck the three of you, Whatever, Thump and Nympocunt! You three cunts have been hounding me because you've decided I'm an easy target for your bile, and you really do have serious issues, all of you. I'm no worse than most people here, and I'm truckloads more sensitive, and boatloads more sincere than you. Go fuck yourselves!

Nothing to do with the hole you keep digging deeper for yourself, eh? Is there a prize for lack of self-awareness here that I haven't heard about?

There's only one reason why you, and the rest who were not here while the action was ongoing, are here now. You saw the damage, caring not one single regard to what actually happened. You glided in when you saw political capital waiting to be snatched up. You, in particular, rarely say anything which is all that interesting. You're just a social scavenger with a superhero complex.

[Mister Agenda]

For the problem of evil (and let me state outright that the theodic version of God is rife with its own problems), we are bringing in an entity that is, or very nearly is, omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent. If you accept the definition for the sake of argument, it necessarily follows that there must be an overriding reason to allow evil, or such a being wouldn't allow it. You can argue, I'm pretty sure successfully, that our state of affairs is inconsistent with a being that literally can do anything, literally knows everything, and would never allow any evil it could prevent. And believers usually dial one or more of their version of God's attributes down to account for this. But it's not special pleading to claim that a being so far beyond mortal limitations that sets all the rules can't be judged by mortal standards.

Absolute bullshit! The greater an entity, and the closer to perfection he is said to be, the higher the standard which he should be expected to live up to. If humans are held liable for accessory to crimes, then the gods of humans are that much more liable for their complicity in them. The only defense which the Xtian god's followers can offer as an excuse is the absolute bullshit "Free Will" argument, and that's just shameful special pleading, plus  ad hoc garbage.

How does Santa deliver all those toys to all the children in the world in one night? He doesn't, it's absolute bullshit. But if you accept for the sake of argument that he does so you can discuss the implications of the feat, it's a little late to backtrack to 'it's complete bullshit'.

Christians don't have to offer adequate excuses for God's inaction. If God is super-good and omniscient and all-powerful and has freewill himself; then his actions or inactions MUST be completely justified by definition and if Christians can't explain how they're justified, it just means God has super good reasons that we can't currently perceive, and might not be equipped to comprehend if we could. The standard Christian answer to the Problem of Evil is that evil exists because without it a greater good could not be achieved or a greater evil would not be prevented. At this point, they have to accept some limitations on God's power, usually starting with not being able to do the impossible (though Drich goes after the super-good part). At this point, their concept of God is reduced (once again) to something unfalsifiable: An omnibenevolent being that knows everything that can be known and can do anything that can be done, that created the universe. He doesn't want there to be any evil, because he's omnibenevolent, so any evil that exists must be because there is a reason why it's not possible to avoid all of it. Presumably God is doing the best he can and things would be a lot worse if not for his efforts. It's a fairy tale, but it's a consistent and unfalsifiable one.

I'm not sure how Christians justify 'omnipotence' for a being that has to rest after a long week of creating everything in the first place.

[Tiberius]

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.

God isn't just another human, and that's the whole point of the issue - he's supposed to be much, much better - therefore, why shouldn't we hold him to a much higher standard? Really!

Right, and my issue is that God isn't the one doing any raping. Sure, he's not preventing rape, but see my argument above for why him preventing rape would be ultimately pointless. God never wanted us to be mindless drones; he wanted creatures with free will that could make decisions for themselves. Presumably he knew that this would mean that some of them would make evil decisions, but the promise of eternal life was supposed to allow humans to make a choice of whether to do good or bad things.

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.

See my argument above.

[Mister Agenda]

Nothing to do with the hole you keep digging deeper for yourself, eh? Is there a prize for lack of self-awareness here that I haven't heard about?

There's only one reason why you, and the rest who were not here while the action was ongoing, are here now. You saw the damage, caring not one single regard to what actually happened. You glided in when you saw political capital waiting to be snatched up. You, in particular, rarely say anything which is all that interesting. You're just a social scavenger with a superhero complex.

Your knack for misanalysing other people's motives continues to take my breath away, as does the banality of your insults.

[LadyForCamus]

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.

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*

[robvalue]

We already have incredibly limited will. I can do almost 0% of the things I could imagine doing. It just so happens that out of this pitiful selection, God choose such options as rape, murder and torture. If he's going to give such a tiny selection, why not make them nice things?

We're only here for his amusement anyway. Why he's so obsessed with us being able to "do evil" I don't know. What's the problem with us doing good things only? God finds that boring, I suppose.

None of it makes any sense, it's trying to explain away why fantasy doesn't meet reality.

CL is far from the only one to carry around a scientific version of reality and a fantasy version, so that either can be called on. For example, "nature" is referred to, as if it's nothing to do with God. But in the fantasy world there is no "nature", there is God's systems. This is why the alternate version is needed, to excuse the shortcomings of the fantasy world and lay blame somewhere else.

Benny: No, it doesn't matter, you're right. Basically, if you're not in control of your actions, then I don't consider you accountable. I'd only assign blame if you made poor decisions leading to this loss of control (such as drinking loads of alcohol or swimming in a toxic sewer or whatever).