A proposed solution for Young Earth Creationism

[Brian2]

I'm saying that revolutions are often motivated by Marxist ideology, but that they tend to be hijacked by totalitarian dictatorships. The carnage, totalitarianism, suppression and disdain for human rights is a artifact of the right, not the left.

The gospel message was also hijacked by politics. Many good things get hijacked by politics.
I don't know if there is a lot of difference between a far right and far left when it comes to evil.
I know that in Australia the right wing seem to be heartless but the left wing only have half a heart.

Butt away. That's what talkboards are for.
Atheism is not believing in gods, but it's not an ethical system.
In re: ethical systems, though, religion has never acquitted itself well in this regard. It's ethics always support whatever the status quo is at the moment, and, in practice, believers never seem to conform even to these.

It is a sad situation that the Church has not taken it's position of light of the world and prophets to the world seriously, especially considering the Church was once in a position to do that in a big way. As you say, we just went along with the status quo.
We became part of the world rather than change it I guess.

 

[Wildswanderer]

So then, if god engages in either one, then he is acting immorally but god himself is moral, so it's all right?

Is that what you're saying?
Or is genocide moral if it happens with god's permission, by virtue of it being his permission?

Is there a higher authority that you are appealing to here? Perhaps your own imperfect intelligence?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Is there a higher authority that you are appealing to here? Perhaps your own imperfect intelligence?

Morality doesn't work by assertion of authority.
Except for psychopaths, off course.

Psychopaths require an authority to tell them what is and isn't moral, because they are unable to figure it out for themselves. That's in fact what makes someone a psychopath.

Also, entities are neither moral or immoral. It's behavior that can be moral or immoral (or amoral, if it's morally neutral).

So in fact, the very sentence "god is immoral" is actually invalid.
It's god's behavior which can be moral or immoral.

And behaving immoral in one instance doesn't imply everything that that person does, will be immoral.

When Hitler was brushing his teeth or walking his dog, he wasn't being immoral.


When we say of a person that the person is moral or immoral, one is actually referring to the average pattern of that person's behavior.

But it's still the behavior that's being judged. Not the person itself.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Morality doesn't work by assertion of authority.
Except for psychopaths, off course.

Psychopaths require an authority to tell them what is and isn't moral, because they are unable to figure it out for themselves. That's in fact what makes someone a psychopath.

Also, entities are neither moral or immoral. It's behavior that can be moral or immoral (or amoral, if it's morally neutral).

So in fact, the very sentence "god is immoral" is actually invalid.
It's god's behavior which can be moral or immoral.

And behaving immoral in one instance doesn't imply everything that that person does, will be immoral.

When Hitler was brushing his teeth or walking his dog, he wasn't being immoral.


When we say of a person that the person is moral or immoral, one is actually referring to the average pattern of that person's behavior.

But it's still the behavior that's being judged. Not the person itself.

Totally bogus reasoning. Obviously morality begins and ends in the heart and brain, not in the behavior.
And you missed the point as usual.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Morality doesn't work by assertion of authority.
Except for psychopaths, off course.

Psychopaths require an authority to tell them what is and isn't moral, because they are unable to figure it out for themselves. That's in fact what makes someone a psychopath.

Also, entities are neither moral or immoral. It's behavior that can be moral or immoral (or amoral, if it's morally neutral).

So in fact, the very sentence "god is immoral" is actually invalid.
It's god's behavior which can be moral or immoral.

And behaving immoral in one instance doesn't imply everything that that person does, will be immoral.

When Hitler was brushing his teeth or walking his dog, he wasn't being immoral.


When we say of a person that the person is moral or immoral, one is actually referring to the average pattern of that person's behavior.

But it's still the behavior that's being judged. Not the person itself.

There's another aspect to this that you are also missing... If I create a race of AI's with Free Will and they start rampaging, and destroying and acting in ways I never programmed them to act, I would have a responsibility to destroy them, as the authority who brought them into existence.
God killing someone is just him removing a creature from the board that he put on the board to begin with.

 

[Polymath257]

Is there a higher authority that you are appealing to here? Perhaps your own imperfect intelligence?

Basic human decency.

 

[Polymath257]

There's another aspect to this that you are also missing... If I create a race of AI's with Free Will and they start rampaging, and destroying and acting in ways I never programmed them to act, I would have a responsibility to destroy them, as the authority who brought them into existence.
God killing someone is just him removing a creature from the board that he put on the board to begin with.

Of course, one difference is that God, being omniscient, knew ahead of time that the AIs he created would go rogue. And he still decided to create them that way.

So, if you created a race of AIs with free will *knowing* they would start rampaging and destroying stuff, would you not be immoral for creating them?

And yes, you would be committing genocide if you destroyed the AIs with free will that you created. of course, at that point, you go into the morality of war and genocide in that context. You would be *doubly* immoral if you knew ahead of time that would be what you would do.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Morality doesn't work by assertion of authority.
Except for psychopaths, off course.

Psychopaths require an authority to tell them what is and isn't moral, because they are unable to figure it out for themselves. That's in fact what makes someone a psychopath.

Definition of psychopath


: a mentally unstable personespecially : a person having an egocentric and antisocial personality marked by a lack of remorse for one's actions, an absence of empathy for others, and often criminal tendencies.

Psychopaths don’t listen to anyone and have no conscience or morality.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Basic human decency.

Why should that be a thing in a godless universe?

 

[Polymath257]

Definition of psychopath


: a mentally unstable personespecially : a person having an egocentric and antisocial personality marked by a lack of remorse for one's actions, an absence of empathy for others, and often criminal tendencies.

Psychopaths don’t listen to anyone and have no conscience or morality.

Essentially the same as what was said: psychopaths only obey authorities they fear. They have no inner sense of morality.

 

[Polymath257]

Why should that be a thing in a godless universe?

Because we are human. That means we are a social species. And social species care for their members.

God has nothing to do with it.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Of course, one difference is that God, being omniscient, knew ahead of time that the AIs he created would go rogue. And he still decided to create them that way.

So, if you created a race of AIs with free will *knowing* they would start rampaging and destroying stuff, would you not be immoral for creating them?

And yes, you would be committing genocide if you destroyed the AIs with free will that you created. of course, at that point, you go into the morality of war and genocide in that context. You would be *doubly* immoral if you knew ahead of time that would be what you would do.

That's your assumption as to how God's knowledge works.
Even if it does perhaps the good in creating some that will listen to him is worth the pain of having to destroy the others.
Perhaps this really is the best of all possible worlds God could have created, with the caveat that he wanted his creatures to have freedom.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Because we are human. That means we are a social species. And social species care for their members.

God has nothing to do with it.

Lol, no, in a godless universe we're just animals.
And animals rule by force.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Essentially the same as what was said: psychopaths only obey authorities they fear. They have no inner sense of morality.

Psychopaths don’t obey or have any authority they do whatever they feel like doing.

 

[Polymath257]

That's your assumption as to how God's knowledge works.
Even if it does perhaps the good in creating some that will listen to him is worth the pain of having to destroy the others.
Perhaps this really is the best of all possible worlds God could have created, with the caveat that he wanted his creatures to have freedom.

Then he is still immoral. going ahead with a creation with a condition you *know* will produce untold pain and suffering simply because you want to see what free will looks like seems very immoral.

If it is the best of all possible worlds having free will, then make a world without it.

 

[Polymath257]

Psychopaths don’t obey or have any authority they do whatever they feel like doing.

The obey those they fear.

Which, given the way theists promote fear of God, is interesting, don't you think?

 

[Polymath257]

Lol, no, in a godless universe we're just animals.
And animals rule by force.

No, they do not. Social animals have basic morality. Why? because it increases overall survival of social species.

 

[Polymath257]

Psychopaths don’t obey or have any authority they do whatever they feel like doing.

I have had many Christians say they would go and kill, rape, steal, and do other horrid things if they didn't believe in a deity that would punish them for doing these things.

That, to me, is a form of psychopathy. Would you not agree?

 

[ElishaElijah]

The obey those they fear.

Psychopaths don’t fear anyone or the consequences of their actions. Could be said of people who do what’s right in their own eyes and get their morals from their own heart. Sound familiar? This person with no compass or authority other than themselves could easily become a psychopath.

 

[Polymath257]

Psychopaths don’t fear anyone or the consequences of their actions. Could be said of people who do what’s right in their own eyes and get their morals from their own heart. Sound familiar? This person with no compass or authority other than themselves could easily become a psychopath.

Nope. People who have compassion and a sense of fairness don't need to be told what to do by an authority. They are the ones that are truly moral.

Those who need to be told what to do and fear punishment if they don't are those in danger of psychopathy. They have no internal moral sense, only one dictated by authority. Sound familiar?