On Moral Authorities

[robvalue]

I wonder why God wanted to appear to the neutral observer like an enraged toddler with super powers, tearing his way through his creation with some sort of egotistical bloodlust?

Wait, or is that a good thing? This is confusing.

[The Grand Nudger]

Shows how big and powerful he is, Rob.  Totally smiting the heathens and such.

[theologian]

The "they had it coming" theory of xenocide justification.  Some god, some morality. You know, it's not a problem at all if you just repeat after me. "God didn't actually do or command any of that shit, they're just stories".

Hey presto! Evil lying heretic atheist objections handled. Next.

Marcion was not an atheist, as he believed in the God of the New Testaments.

Of course, the historicity of the Old Testament I've not denied, but we must consider the pedagogy of God, of giving importance to justice in the Old Testament, so that afterwards the Lord Jesus, in taking justice for us, can show and make mercy understandable, as what is to be merciful upon without offense against justice? It's like learning algebra and analytic geometry first before trying to learn calculus.

[The Grand Nudger]

Marcion was not an atheist, as he believed in the God of the New Testaments.

Gee...you don't saaaay  

Just trying to cover all your bases for you Theo.  You're welcome.  

Of course, the historicity of the Old Testament I've not denied, but we must consider the pedagogy of God, of giving importance to justice in the Old Testament, so that afterwards the Lord Jesus, in taking justice for us, can show and make mercy understandable, as what is to be merciful upon without offense against justice? It's like learning algebra and analytic geometry first before trying to learn calculus.

Pedagogy, lol, you know dead people don't learn anything, right.  Killing a person doesn;t teach them a lesson, it just makes them dead.  The only lesson it teaches observers is that your the kind of guy that would..you know, kill a person?  

Mercy, justice?  Are you referring to the ritual slaughter of a jew as atonement for the sins of others?  I definitely didn't need to be shown that to understand either, and frankly....that little bit of business is only a useful lesson in what -not- to do. Some god, some mercy, some justice.

[robvalue]

Yeah... smashing babies' heads against rocks is just like learning algebra.

Don't be criticising my morality any more.

[theologian]

The problem here is getting theists to define exactly what they mean by morality in the first place. Even this guy who admits he'll roll over on anything God says is still trying to insist that it must also be what's best for wellbeing. The problem is that when you put absolute trust in an authority, you have no standard by which to check what they are doing. If they in fact don't have our best interests at heart, we'll never realise.

This is already a false dichotomy, for the case can be being both authoritative and knowledgeable, as that should be the more in the case of God Whom is all knowing and the Creator.

I don't give a monkey spit what God does and doesn't consider "moral". He has to explain why, like everyone else. If he tells me to go murder and rape a load of people, I'm not going to do it just because he says so. And he has indeed said so in the past, according to the bible.

One mistake here is to bring down God by treating Him like humans.

So God gives us a brain, then wants us to turn it off and blindly follow what he tells us to do? That's just really stupid. He may as well have made robots. Oh wait, he wouldn't get to torture anyone then. And that would be a terrible shame.

That case on the other hand fails to consider the knowledge of good and evil through natural law, which the natural human faculty of reason must be used.

I think atheist here will do better destroying theists' arguments by considering all that which must be considered. Otherwise, it's just either missing the point or a straw man. However, if they consider what must be considered, they may finally see the rationality of theistic position, the irrationality of atheism and finally cease to be an atheist. Hence, considering what must be considered is a must.

[The Grand Nudger]

Yes, we know that you think it;s a mistake to treat gods like humans.  What we would execute a human for we are told to worship your god for.  Special standards for special people and their special beliefs.

I remember something, in those commandment thingies, about not being a murdering douchenozzle. Physician, heal thyself.

[Edwardo Piet]

When you say it could be "neither" you are agreeing with me that it's a false dichotomy.

Negative. You were galaxies away from explicating how it's neither. Let me demonstrate: option d, squirrels, just because. Accept it or accept you're wrong.

You said it could be "neither". That's all I said, that it could be neither.

I don't have to explain logically why it's neither I never said it was.

YOU ARE JOKING?! Lucky for you I'm on my phone right now and cannot be bothered to quote every single time you kept parroting 'neither'.

My answer was "neither". I can give that answer because it's not a true dichotomy. I never said it it necessarily was neither. It's neither because there are no gods.

That was your own strawman of me.

Bull-fucking-shit. This is too rich.

It was. My answer is "neither", the fact that I can give that answer demonstrates that the dichotomy is false.

So it took this long for you to admit I was right, basically. And you still haven't admitted I'm right explicitly, you've only done it implicitly, and you're probably going to continue to double down on why it's not a false dichotomy, according to you, despite just now implicitly agreeing that it is one.

Hopeless.

A false dichotomy is a dichotomy where "neither" can be given as answer.
I said it was a false dichotomy.
You admitted that "neither" can be given as an answer.
Thereby you admitted that I was right.

In reality, the only one embarrassing themselves here is you. Anyone who thinks I'm embarrassing myself is just one more person who can't grasp my logic.

Your brand of logic reeks of falsities. Not interested.

There is no "brand" of logic, there's contradictory and non-contradictory logic. You are being contradictory because you're insisting the dilemma we are discussing is not a false dichotomy at the same time as admitting that it is.

Here's my own argument from authority to counteract your bullshit about Plato, seen as you like your fallacies so much:

“Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.”
― Bertrand Russell

Cool.

Yes I am.

[FallentoReason]

My answer is "neither", the fact that I can give that answer demonstrates that the dichotomy is false.

The fact you can pull shit out of your pocket proves nothing. I can play that game too: (d) squirrels.

It's neither because there are no gods.

And here's the defeater for why it's not neither. You're attempting to undermine an atheistic argument with the atheistic conclusion to said atheistic argument. It's like saying the problem of evil is not sound because the mere situation it describes implies a god.

You're out of your mind. Now please stop.

[FallentoReason]

Which arguments do you regard to be sound? We won't discuss them here, but I'd like to know your context please.

The Five Ways of St. Thomas Aquinas

Okay, interesting.

Why does it have to be Truth and Goodness? Why not Lies and Badness?

Because truth is the state of mind in accordance with being or reality while lies are the opposite. And because everything that must be truly good, must be true, and everything that is true must be real, and badness is always in contrary with being. Hence Truth and Goodness instead of Lies and Badness.

(my emphasis) Such a way of thinking means you wouldn't be able to save someone from a murderer looking for that person. If they asked you where they are, and you know the answer, you wouldn't be able to lie to save their lives.

How does all of this fare with the Old Testament? Is God really all that you say if he once upon a time commanded to kill and rape?

The Old Testament must be understood in light of Christ. It teaches about justice and can be used in spirituality like fighting one's sins like how God's people must eradicate not some, but all of the opponent and so all and not some sins may be eradicated. Without Christ and the teaching of the Church, one cannot conclude rightly from the Old Testament. That is not an old problem. A heretic named Marcion in times of first Christians had denied the Old Testament by understanding it incorrectly, by, like the modern atheists, conclude God of the Old Testament is evil, which is again incorrect, for it didn't consider Christ and His Church which is the completion of God's revelation.

Hmm, well, I don't feel compelled to argue against a strawman of Jewish belief. There isn't just YHWH, there's a whole pantheon of gods:

When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance, when he divided all mankind, he set up boundaries for the peoples according to the number of the sons of Israel. For the Lord's portion is his people, Jacob his allotted inheritance.

When Elyon gave the nations as an inheritance, when he separated the sons of man, he set the boundaries of the peoples accoring to the number of the sons of God. For Yahweh's portion was his people; Jacob was the lot of his inheritance."

When monotheism became mainstream, there was the need to correct such passages, and obscure monotheistic tones.