Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: May 30, 2024, 10:50 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Agnosticism IS the most dishonest position
RE: Agnosticism IS the most dishonest position
Why would I have to deal with moral relativism? I'm not a moral relativist. I get that -you- don't count them as objections..but that hardly matters as to whether or not they are objections which prevent -me- from joining your club.

It's ludicrous to suggest that only our closest buddies have a right to a moral conclusion on our character and actions. I don't care that his pals and his culture at large put up with him taking a child bride. That, again, is not my jam..and no amount of it being their jam will make it my jam, nor will any amount of them not having an issue with it mean that I can't.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply
RE: Agnosticism IS the most dishonest position
(February 19, 2020 at 12:24 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Why would I have to deal with moral relativism?  I'm not a moral relativist.  I get that -you- don't count them as objections..but that hardly matters as to whether or not they are objections which prevent -me- from joining your club. 

In other words, you just don't like the prophet. Sounds like more of a grudge to me than a reasonable objection.

(February 19, 2020 at 12:24 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: It's ludicrous to suggest that only our closest buddies have a right to a moral conclusion on our character and actions.  I don't care that his pals and his culture at large put up with him taking a child bride.  That, again, is not my jam..and no amount of it being their jam will make it my jam, nor will any amount of them not having an issue with it mean that I can't.

Whether it's your jam or not should be irrelevant. Nobody gets to choose where truth lies or whether people who "have" it are pleasant to us. A good analogy would be to listen carefully to the teacher regardless of him being the ugliest nerd with eyeglasses.
Reply
RE: Agnosticism IS the most dishonest position
(February 19, 2020 at 12:49 pm)Klorophyll Wrote:
(February 19, 2020 at 12:24 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Why would I have to deal with moral relativism?  I'm not a moral relativist.  I get that -you- don't count them as objections..but that hardly matters as to whether or not they are objections which prevent -me- from joining your club. 

In other words, you just don't like the prophet. Sounds like more of a grudge to me than a reasonable objection.
No, I already told you, I have moral objections to his character and his ethics.  This makes him unsuitable as a cult leader, and makes his cult unsuitable, to me.

Quote:
(February 19, 2020 at 12:24 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: It's ludicrous to suggest that only our closest buddies have a right to a moral conclusion on our character and actions.  I don't care that his pals and his culture at large put up with him taking a child bride.  That, again, is not my jam..and no amount of it being their jam will make it my jam, nor will any amount of them not having an issue with it mean that I can't.

Whether it's your jam or not should be irrelevant. Nobody gets to choose where truth lies or whether people who "have" it are pleasant to us. A good analogy would be to listen carefully to the teacher regardless of him being the ugliest nerd with eyeglasses.

It's relevant to whether or not I can be a muslim, Kloro.  It's the only thing that's relevant to whether or not I could or would join your club.  
Remember, that's what you asked me about, and that's what I'm explaining to you.  There are tons of other clubs I also don't belong to, if that makes you feel better.

I don't know wtf you're babbling on about with the pleasantness of people.  I've never had an unpleasant experience with a muslim, and that just doesn't factor into why I'm not a muslim. I've heard what your teacher has to say..and that's -why- I'm not a muslim. That's all there is to it. I like to tell your christian brethren that I'm just not a winnable soul. The things that you consider to be true, the truth that you would have me affirm, repulse me as a person of good character and strong conscience.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply
RE: Agnosticism IS the most dishonest position
(February 19, 2020 at 12:17 pm)Klorophyll Wrote:
(February 19, 2020 at 10:47 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: A just deity doesn't have to be omnipotent, it has to be just and a deity. Maybe it's in another galaxy and doing the best it can with the worshipers it has over there. Maybe a just deity created us and died in the effort. There are other ideas of gods besides the tri-omni one.

I am curious to know your definition of a deity and its exact attributes. Because ruling out omnipotence is a big one. I suppose though that this deity you're talking about is the same deity that created us. And it would be awkward for this very deity not to be able to reach us.
A mortal deity is a useless concept that is not worth pursuing. Why? Because its existence is something of the past, even if provable, it has no bearing on our lives because, again, it's dead.

I agree we can imagine all kinds of deities. But it's an exercise in futility to investigate deities that can't interfere with us in any imaginable way, because, whether they exist or not, there is no reason for us to care.

The usual definition of 'god' is fine by me: a superhuman divine being or spirit worshiped for its supernatural powers. If I capitalize it, I'm talking about one of the 'created the universe' ones. Why would a just deity necessarily be the one that created us if we were created by any deity at all? Maybe the god of clay molded us out of river sediment and the god of justice handles all the 'being just' aspects of reality. Myths are very malleable, and so are deities, their backgrounds and attributes depend largely on what people want them to be. Maybe the gods of clay and justice are still with us and actively participating in human affairs without being obvious about it; and we'd get more justice and better ceramics if we prayed to them instead of the wrong gods. If you only want to talk about Gods, that's fine, but you have no authority to say lesser superhumanly powerful immortal beings don't count as gods.

(February 19, 2020 at 12:17 pm)Klorophyll Wrote:
(February 19, 2020 at 10:47 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: It's always amusing to see which leg of the tripod of theodicy a believer in that kind of God will try to saw off when pressed, and a little depressing when they decide they can do without the benevolence but absolutely have to save the omnipotence. 

I don't see how keeping omnibenevolence will releave your depression either. Is it acceptable to you that a God loves - unconditionally, mind you - a person who murdered entire families, conducted rapes and genocides with no remorse?
Is it conceivable in any imaginable way that God loves the likes of, say, Ted Bundy or Henry Lee Lucas unconditionally?

Jesus said to love your enemy. I've seen people who can manage that, surely God can if he wants to.

(February 19, 2020 at 12:17 pm)Klorophyll Wrote: The Qur'an explicitly mentions the problem:
[4:18] : The Jews and the Christians say, “We are the children of God, and His beloved.” Say, “Why then does He punish you for your sins?” In fact, you are humans from among those He created. He forgives whom He wills, and He punishes whom He wills. To God belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth and what lies between them, and to Him is the return.

The very existence of punishment is not reconcilable with omnibenevolence. The latter is merely an extension of motherly tenderness, nothing more. It's the product of our imagination. That's why the Christian belief is competely nonsensical, his advocacy for omnibenevolence is actually a symptom of an altered, corrupt doctrine. It's very simple and straightforward : those who deserve love are loved, those who don't, aren't. Unconditional love is something sweet to sing about, but it doesn't make sense.

God can't have 'motherly tenderness'? God can't exert just punishment and still love the one that unfortunately has to be punished? I would agree that God can't love the object of unjust eternal torture (that's obviously either preternatural hatred or superhuman pettiness); but punishment and love are not mutually exclusive. Sounds like your God's version of love is very limited and ordinary. Not the sort of God you'd worship out of love, the sort you'd worship out of fear in order to placate. I suppose that might turn into a Stockholm Syndrome type of quasi-love.

(February 19, 2020 at 12:17 pm)Klorophyll Wrote:
(February 19, 2020 at 10:47 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: but an omniscient God still cannot have free will because it can not do other than it has foreseen that it will do, and it can't be omnipotent for the same reason; omnipotence requires free will. Since omnipotence seems the most important attribute to you, maybe slice a little bit off that omniscience. It's your character, you can edit it however you want.

I think you're forgetting what free will means in the first place. From Wiki we have : "Free will is the ability to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded". It doesn't include regretting a decision made in the past, which is what you are supposing implicitly. For you argument to work, God needs to second guess a decision he made freely, and second-guessing has nothing to do with free will. You just want to stick a bad attribute to God as you were doing before when you mentioned being surprised, learning, growing, etc. Again, you're anthropomorphising God to rule him out of existence.
Now, it's true an omniscient God can't do other than it has foreseen. Is that a problem? As long as he didn't change his mind about what he decided, there is none. And being able to change mind is specific to us feeble humans.
God also can't feel sorry for itself, can't feel guilt, can't get tired, can't feel hungry, etc.  You can see now I think the problem with your reasoning.

If you're never able to change your mind, in what sense is your will free? You forgot about the part of free will where you're free to make a different choice. An omniscient being literally cannot make a different choice, all of its choices were predetermined. No thought or decision making is involved, the moment you are omniscient with regard to the future, that's the moment all of your choices are set in diamond.

(February 19, 2020 at 12:17 pm)Klorophyll Wrote:
(February 19, 2020 at 10:47 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: I don't believe in those Gods either, but at least those concepts don't immediately self-destruct and I kind of appreciate that they'd rather believe God has limits on God's power or knowledge than believe that there are limits on God's love.

As explained above, infinite love is much more problematic than infinite power, and more importantly, it doesn't make any sense, because it's obviously a pure product of the human mind, something we spice up to make the concept more attractive. Why some tend to think omniscience is impossible is only because of its subtle meaning, there is nothing wrong about it logically. 

Of course the idea of God varies for every belief out there. But nobody really takes a god with half-baked attributes seriously, because its existence (or non-existence) doesn't change anything in anybody's life. Only the tri-omni just god does, because then his existence implies necessarily that he gave us clues about himself, and created us for a purpose. He's also the only concept of god against which you had real  objections. His existence is verifiable in some way. If we do that, there is nothing more to be done regarding the god question.

It's all a pure product of the human mind, at least the ones who believe in God's love are being kind of sweet. Everyone who believe in a god takes a god with half-baked attributes seriously, because they're all half-baked. None of the supposed gods or Gods changes anything in anybody's life except for the psychological effect on their attitudes and actions; because they're all imaginary or might as well be because none of them have an existence that is verifiable in any rational way. They're all only as real as their followers belief in them. There is nothing to be done with the god question because there either aren't any gods or they are completely undetectable.
I'm not anti-Christian. I'm anti-stupid.
Reply
RE: Agnosticism IS the most dishonest position
(February 19, 2020 at 12:57 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: No, I already told you, I have moral objections to his character and his ethics.  This makes him unsuitable as a cult leader, and makes his cult unsuitable, to me.

I think you only hear what you want to hear. I already said you can't object morally to his character mainly because he doesn't belong to your era. You need a stronger case against him than simply saying "not my jam" and/or name calling.

(February 19, 2020 at 12:57 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: I like to tell your christian brethren that I'm just not a winnable soul.  The things that you consider to be true, the truth that you would have me affirm, repulse me as a person of good character and strong conscience.

Again, you're referring to yourself - more precisely, to your tastes - as judge and jury over the entire history. Until now you didn't give any objective underlying reason for your distaste against the prophets.

(February 19, 2020 at 12:59 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: The usual definition of 'god' is fine by me: a superhuman divine being or spirit worshiped for its supernatural powers. If I capitalize it, I'm talking about one of the 'created the universe' ones. Why would a just deity necessarily be the one that created us if we were created by any deity at all? Maybe the god of clay molded us out of river sediment and the god of justice handles all the 'being just' aspects of reality. Myths are very malleable, and so are deities, their backgrounds and attributes depend largely on what people want them to be. Maybe the gods of clay and justice are still with us and actively participating in human affairs without being obvious about it; and we'd get more justice and better ceramics if we prayed to them instead of the wrong gods. If you only want to talk about Gods, that's fine, but you have no authority to say lesser superhumanly powerful immortal beings don't count as gods. 

I think we should refer to established belief systems when trying to agree on definitions. I didn't pick the attributes of God in Islam, nor did any other Muslim or Christian or Jew, and thus, at least for major religions, God is not that open to imagination. Also, regarding the gods of clay and justice, even the claim isn't there anywhere, no one ever made it his life's purpose to preach for the god of clay, therefore, a fortiori, the god of clay didn't send anyone . So we can rest assured that, even if these gods existed, they didn't want us to find out, and we shouldn't concern ourselves with them. The versions of God for which there is at least a claim, that is, messengers or revelations making extraordinary assertions, are a good starting point.

(February 19, 2020 at 12:59 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: Jesus said to love your enemy. I've seen people who can manage that, surely God can if he wants to.

I don't see the relationship between loving your enemy and unconditionally loving a person who did gravely immoral deeds his entire life.

(February 19, 2020 at 12:59 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: God can't have 'motherly tenderness'? God can't exert just punishment and still love the one that unfortunately has to be punished? I would agree that God can't love the object of unjust eternal torture (that's obviously either preternatural hatred or superhuman pettiness); but punishment and love are not mutually exclusive. Sounds like your God's version of love is very limited and ordinary. Not the sort of God you'd worship out of love, the sort you'd worship out of fear in order to placate. I suppose that might turn into a Stockholm Syndrome type of quasi-love. 

Firrst of all, there are people who justly deserve eternal torture. The length of a crime has no bearing on the length of the punishment, drinking poison only takes seconds to make one pass away forever, shooting someone is done instantly while prison time can be as lengthy as it gets, etc. It's not hard then to say, for example, that a murderer like Hitler should pay the price of every human life he took unfairly, and since human life is infinitely valuable, infinite punishment is the only right thing here.
And speaking of love, I didn't negate benevolence altogether, I'm objecting to omnibenevolence. You already seem to agree that God can't love people condemned to eternal damnation. Well, there are people who deserve it. God is benevolent, sure, and there are Muslims - whose religion doesn't say their God is all-loving - who worship God out of love, namely, adepts of Sufism.


(February 19, 2020 at 12:59 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: If you're never able to change your mind, in what sense is your will free? You forgot about the part of free will where you're free to make a different choice. An omniscient being literally cannot make a different choice, all of its choices were predetermined. No thought or decision making is involved, the moment you are omniscient with regard to the future, that's the moment all of your choices are set in diamond.

"Thought" and "decision making" are, again, specific to the human thought process. You say "all of its choices were predetermined" without explaining exactly what you mean by predetermined. Predetermined by whom? If by God himself, then so much the better, as long as he makes the absolute best choices -which he does by defintion. God was always there and he does what he wants without any external force or condition influencing his actions, and this is free will.
Even the word decision is not appropriate when speaking about a supreme being, decision underlies some studying done beforehand, which is of course not the case with an omnipotent being.

You say : "the moment you are omniscient with regard to the future, that's the moment all of your choices are set in diamond." And I agree. And it's not a problem, God is that good by definition.

(February 19, 2020 at 12:59 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: It's all a pure product of the human mind, at least the ones who believe in God's love are being kind of sweet. Everyone who believe in a god takes a god with half-baked attributes seriously, because they're all half-baked. None of the supposed gods or Gods changes anything in anybody's life except for the psychological effect on their attitudes and actions; because they're all imaginary or might as well be because none of them have an existence that is verifiable in any rational way. They're all only as real as their followers belief in them. There is nothing to be done with the god question because there either aren't any gods or they are completely undetectable.

We believe in God's love too, only not in the omni sense. The three omni God, if he exists, actually does change the eternal portions of all our lives - our afterlife. And thus, he does have, theoretically, a bearing on our existence. And as I said, this same God can't be undetectable logically. But if you establish that this is the case, by ruling out the major revelations out there as complete fabrications, then you're done.
Reply
RE: Agnosticism IS the most dishonest position
(February 19, 2020 at 3:07 pm)Klorophyll Wrote:
(February 19, 2020 at 12:57 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: No, I already told you, I have moral objections to his character and his ethics.  This makes him unsuitable as a cult leader, and makes his cult unsuitable, to me.

I think you only hear what you want to hear. I already said you can't object morally to his character mainly because he doesn't belong to your era. You need a stronger case against him  than simply saying "not my jam" and/or name calling.
I'm obviously not hearing anything that I want to hear...what with what I'm hearing being the reason I couldn't be a member of your club.  I really don't need a stronger case for why I do or don't join any club. 

Your club says things I can't co-sign, therefore I'm not interested in being in your club.  This can't be hard to understand.  

Quote:
(February 19, 2020 at 12:57 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: I like to tell your christian brethren that I'm just not a winnable soul.  The things that you consider to be true, the truth that you would have me affirm, repulse me as a person of good character and strong conscience.

Again, you're referring to yourself - more precisely, to your tastes - as judge and jury over the entire history. Until now you didn't give any objective underlying reason for your distaste against the prophets.
I'm the judge and jury over whether or not I can join a club, and why, Kloro.  Your founder was evil and your religion is morally abhorrent.  Not objective enough?  What would be, you tell me.  Honestly.  What do you think would be a sufficiently objective reason...for me....not to join a club? Or...how about this, let me propose something to you.

I know this guy, you should give him oral sex. It's superfun and awesome and everyone should be doing it. Do you want to join the club? Why, or why not?
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply
RE: Agnosticism IS the most dishonest position
@Klorophyll

Why should I believe a god exists? What are the reasons that should persuade me, or any other rational adult?
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”

Wiser words were never spoken. 
Reply
RE: Agnosticism IS the most dishonest position
(February 19, 2020 at 3:07 pm)Klorophyll Wrote: I think you only hear what you want to hear. I already said you can't object morally to his character mainly because he doesn't belong to your era.
Facepalm

By that logic you cant object to Genghis Khan.
Cetero censeo religionem delendam esse
Reply
RE: Agnosticism IS the most dishonest position
(February 19, 2020 at 12:49 pm)Klorophyll Wrote: In other words, you just don't like the prophet. Sounds like more of a grudge to me than a reasonable objection.

Not a moral relativist either. The "prophet" simply didn't have any at all.
Reply
RE: Agnosticism IS the most dishonest position
Ten bucks says Kloro is, though. What with how ethical warrant appears to be relative to time, rather than bound by facts. It's a common mistake that god bothering moral relativists make, even imagining that we have to then account for their own relativism as though it's some position we hold.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Agnosticism LinuxGal 5 891 January 2, 2023 at 8:29 am
Last Post: Anomalocaris
  Atheism, theism, agnosticism, gnosticism, ignosticism Simon Moon 25 2165 October 29, 2022 at 4:49 pm
Last Post: LinuxGal
  Two Undeniable Truths Why Theism is True and Atheism and Agnosticism are Not True HiYou 49 12460 July 21, 2015 at 6:59 am
Last Post: KUSA
  Enlightened [Elitist] Agnosticism Dystopia 92 10059 March 3, 2015 at 11:48 am
Last Post: robvalue
  In need of a more humbleness. Why condemning the Theistic position makes no sense. Mystic 141 24400 September 22, 2014 at 7:59 am
Last Post: Chas
  Question about atheism related with gnosticism and agnosticism Dystopia 4 2146 July 10, 2014 at 5:52 pm
Last Post: ignoramus
  Implications of the Atheistic Position FallentoReason 33 11658 September 2, 2012 at 9:42 pm
Last Post: Oldandeasilyconfused
  Atheism vs. Agnosticism EscapingDelusion 9 5504 August 28, 2012 at 2:25 pm
Last Post: pocaracas
  Both groups feel the other side is dishonest? Mystic 27 10967 July 18, 2012 at 6:43 pm
Last Post: Brian37
  Why Agnosticism? diffidus 69 27205 July 1, 2011 at 9:07 am
Last Post: The Grand Nudger



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)