Objective morality as a proper basic belief

[Foxaèr]

4. When god's morals so perfectly mirror that of evil human dictators throughout history, it begs the question of whether theists truly understand the meaning of good.

Oh, I see. You think everything is God's plan. It is my view that you have to distinguish between God effecting his plan of redemption and his promises to those that believe within a world of free will and sin vs. the effects of free will and sin.

Behind that curtain of word salad which resides the supposed omni-everything, and theists are all too fond of extrapolating on god's unknowable nature.

[The Grand Nudger]

Another wonderful question, accidentally touched upon by our resident liar for christ.

What -is- gods plan, and how does one distinguish between items of The Plan™ of the being with "perfect moral qualities", and shit that just happens?  It seems like it would be easy to do, but I possess an objective moral schema.  It's obviously much more difficult for those that don't, or  for those that can't even comprehend what that is.  It leaves those people scrambling about "the common good" when the perfect moral being does something so plainly immoral that an argument is required to redeem it.  Now, I don't mind those people borrowing my moral schema (obviously I think it's a good one)....but they could at least acknowledge that they've done so.

---

Adding another question to the pile.  What, exactly, is the point or impetus of all this nonsense?  Is god or gods goodness somehow -diminished- by it's perfect adherence to an objective standard of morality?  How could that possibly be the case?  If god is perfectly good, apart from it's own subjective plan, or any subjective invocation of it's nature.....wouldn't that be a good thing?  

If the goal is an objective morality, what utility is there in referring to the moral -subject- of a god? How is this any different than referring to the moral -subject- of any given human being?

[mordant]

4. When god's morals so perfectly mirror that of evil human dictators throughout history, it begs the question of whether theists truly understand the meaning of good.

Oh, I see. You think everything is God's plan. It is my view that you have to distinguish between God effecting his plan of redemption and his promises to those that believe within a world of free will and sin vs. the effects of free will and sin.

Irrelevant. Nothing happens without god either permitting it or causing it, and nothing is outside his ability to prevent, so he is still ultimately responsible for the mayhem. If a burglar comes into my house and slits my children's throats while I passively watch, I can't claim I'm a good father, using as an excuse that I'm not interfering in the burglar's free will.

[SteveII]

Oh, I see. You think everything is God's plan. It is my view that you have to distinguish between God effecting his plan of redemption and his promises to those that believe within a world of free will and sin vs. the effects of free will and sin.

Behind that curtain of word salad which resides the supposed omni-everything, and theists are all too fond of extrapolating on god's unknowable nature.

I had forgotten that you were not interested in a discussion. My mistake. Won't happen again.

[Foxaèr]

Behind that curtain of word salad which resides the supposed omni-everything, and theists are all too fond of extrapolating on god's unknowable nature.

I had forgotten that you were not interested in a discussion. My mistake. Won't happen again.

When the discussion veers toward reality and reason, off-path from theistic fancies, of course theists are going to blame the other person for not properly wanting to discuss the content.

Theists have such a difficult time accepting personal blame and responsibility. It is never their fault. No.

[SteveII]

Oh, I see. You think everything is God's plan. It is my view that you have to distinguish between God effecting his plan of redemption and his promises to those that believe within a world of free will and sin vs. the effects of free will and sin.

Irrelevant. Nothing happens without god either permitting it or causing it, and nothing is outside his ability to prevent, so he is still ultimately responsible for the mayhem. If a burglar comes into my house and slits my children's throats while I passively watch, I can't claim I'm a good father, using as an excuse that I'm not interfering in the burglar's free will.

Your analogy is lacking. So while God does permit evil, it is only because it is a by-product of a much greater goal: free will. Without free will we would have just been happy puppets always following a predefined path. God instead wanted people to *choose* to obey, love and worship Him as well as having loving, respectful, etc. relationships with others (none of which is possible without free will).

You seem to think that God should intervene and prevent evil things from happening. It does not seem to me that we could have a world where we have free will and not have suffering because every wrong choice we made that resulted in suffering (however small) would be met with a supernatural intervention. Such a state of affairs would result in a complete lack of morally sufficient freedom --effectively eliminating free will. So it would seem that a world in which everyone had free will but no possibility of suffering would not be able to be actualized.

[Foxaèr]

You seem to think that God should intervene and prevent evil things from happening.

He should, or else he is not a god worthy of recognition.

mordant provided the perfect analogy, which you seem to have conveniently ignored for your theistic fantasy that god is above reproach.

If a burglar comes into my house and slits my children's throats while I passively watch, I can't claim I'm a good father, using as an excuse that I'm not interfering in the burglar's free will.

[The Grand Nudger]

Irrelevant. Nothing happens without god either permitting it or causing it, and nothing is outside his ability to prevent, so he is still ultimately responsible for the mayhem. If a burglar comes into my house and slits my children's throats while I passively watch, I can't claim I'm a good father, using as an excuse that I'm not interfering in the burglar's free will.

Your analogy is lacking. So while God does permit evil, it is only because it is a by-product of a much greater goal: free will. Without free will we would have just been happy puppets always following a predefined path. God instead wanted people to *choose* to obey, love and worship Him as well as having loving, respectful, etc. relationships with others (none of which is possible without free will).

-and there it is again..gods plain immorality by any standard, objective or subjective..requires a defense of a "greater good", unfortunately for god's moral status this defense is so weak that it doesn't hold water even in the case of we lowly human creatures.  No ones "free will" to commit the crime is impacted, in the least, by preventing them from -accomplishing- the crime.  The god of scripture being a thought criming god...you'd think this would have occured to him...but obviously it didn't.  Yet another thing that an omniscient being, apparently, didn't know.

You seem to think that God should intervene and prevent evil things from happening. It does not seem to me that we could have a world where we have free will and not have suffering because every wrong choice we made that resulted in suffering (however small) would be met with a supernatural intervention. Such a state of affairs would result in a complete lack of morally sufficient freedom --effectively eliminating free will. So it would seem that a world in which everyone had free will but no possibility of suffering would not be able to be actualized.

Obviously, a Much Better World™ is the one in which god arbitrarily decides to step in and help some specific master race, from time to time, by slaughtering their enemies and suchlike.  Why can't these immoral heathens see the holiness trumping mercy..Steve?

[JackRussell]

And worse yet, we are supposed to believe that God does intervene when it suits him; if not what use is Jesus whole shtick?

Plenty of Christians have spoken of God's wrath being visited on some poor sods, usually after a freak weather event with casualties, as signs of his displeasure with the sin du jour.

None of this makes any sense to me at all. And how is vicarious redemption moral in any way at all?

[The Grand Nudger]

The heavens were silent for at least 50k years worth of war and disease and poverty and abject human misery.  God, omnipresent, sits at the tip of every sexually assaulting penis, complicit in it's silence.

-and yet, from time to time, he finds a persons wallet for them.  Talk about shitty priorities. This -seems- to be a stunning failure to live up to those "perfect moral qualities" we hear about, and yet, Steve seems to think that it;s all a-okay, because doing anything about it would somehow get in the way of Gods Good Plan™ to punish people eternally and/or annihilate them.