Atheistic Double Standard?

[1robin]

Translation: Based on the objective morality of your god it once was moral to kill two men for having sex with each other but it isn't objectively moral any more.

No translation required. My two statements need no color commentary.

 

[Darkstorn]

What you claimed was not even coherent, and did not seem related to anything I said. Which probably explains why you won't actually quote what I said and coherently comment on it. Since what you said does not seem related to anything I have said, I can't guess what it is, in order to reply.

MY subjective opinion corresponds to objective fact, therefore yours cannot. My subjective assessment of you could probably be considered objectively negative.

Unlike your moral world view my "subjective" opinion may (and probably does) correspond to objective fact.

*sigh*

It's not my fault you can't see the relation. And you are right: You shouldn't be able to guess the content of the post YOU YOURSELF QUOTED. You should know it. Your own fault for not reading the post you were quoting. The quote was right there when you pressed the "reply" button on the post you were replying to. And i'm supposed to find an almost week old post from the depths of a very long thread just because you didn't bother reading what you were yourself quoting? Yeah, sounds just about right.

You are basically selling yourself short with your gross inability.

 

[1robin]

I answer the posts in chronological order. Might be some overlap.No that is not necessary let's let people draw their own conclusions. Tribal warfare isn't objectively wrong, it just depends on who starts it. It appears that if your god starts it it's objectively right, if I started a tribal war it would be objectively wrong?

None of these are serious problems but:
1. Once you ask a question, why ask the same one time after time in several other posts regardless of what order you respond to them in.
2. I have also noticed that those who's position is primarily based on an emotional preference post very often but not in any depth. In the past three days you have posted just to me, in just one thread, 15 times. All 15 posts combined do not equal one sincere, well thought out, in depth post. It's like your trying to kill of God by virtue of a thousand paper cuts.
3. I can't get you to select and issue or 2 and actually see if your representation of it is accurate.

Regardless,

1. Do you want to discuss what morality based on actual evolution would look like (example: tribal warfare)?
2. Or do you want to discuss one or two of the wars God commanded to be carried out? (these involve tribes but they are not the kind of tribal warfare that evolution would explain, I will make this clear once you decide which ones you want to discuss).

 

[ArtieE]

1. Do you want to discuss what morality based on actual evolution would look like (example: tribal warfare)?

Do you want to discuss what morality based on the objective morals of your god would look like? See the tribal warfare in the Old Testament.

 

[Sha'irullah]

I know of many atheistic double standards yet the ones spotted out by the religious never hold true. Atheists do not need to make any positive claims that need refutations which is why atheism is so easy. It is merely an intellectual conclusion that coincidentally is backed up by the emotional as well.

 

[1robin]

But the holocaust would have been morally right if your god had started it?

Kind of (your starting to get divine command theory a little bit). However God could not start and evil event of he is a good God. God is an infinite being composed of everything that does not contradict other attributes. A good God commanding an evil deed is like a married bachelor or a square circle. Now an evil God could command an evil act without contradicting himself.

So the answer is that if God could command evil, that evil would be morally right, but since a good God can't perform logically contradicting commands then there is no chance that that could occur.

And it is objectively true that "killing is bad" and "stealing is bad" is detrimental to the well-being of a society and the people in it. You can just use a computer and calculate the detrimental effects if people in a society all started killing each other and stealing from each other. That truth value is independent of peoples opinions. Hence it's objectively true that killing is immoral and stealing is immoral.

No that is not the case. The original bible said though shall not murder, not though shall not kill. Sometimes killing is morally justifiable, but murder isn't. Stealing is always bad but God set up a system in ancient Israel where stealing was never required for food etc. For example he made a law where all farmers had to leave a certain portion of grain un-harvested to feed the poor, etc..... I am not sure what the rest of what your saying means.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Do you want to discuss what morality based on actual evolution would look like (example: tribal warfare)?

That's biblical morality. Many have evolved past that.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I know of many atheistic double standards yet the ones spotted out by the religious never hold true. Atheists do not need to make any positive claims that need refutations which is why atheism is so easy. It is merely an intellectual conclusion that coincidentally is backed up by the emotional as well.

Atheism isn't a conclusion. It is merely a "No" answer to the question, "Do you believe in a god or gods?"

 

[ArtieE]

Kind of (your starting to get divine command theory a little bit). However God could not start and evil event of he is a good God.

God is an infinite being composed of everything that does not contradict other attributes. A good God commanding an evil deed is like a married bachelor or a square circle. Now an evil God could command an evil act without contradicting himself.

Well, your god would have to be able to start both good and evil events otherwise he wouldn't be omnipotent.

Omnipotent: "having unlimited power and able to do anything omnipotent Meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary

Or you are saying that it is your god that determines what is good, in which case your god could start torturing every human on the planet and it would be good not evil.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

your god could start torturing every human on the planet and it would be good not evil.

Agreed. This god will allegedly consign most of the human race to eternal torture for not worshiping it based on a flawed book that most never saw and many more couldn't find a reason to believe, and the believers in this god consider it infinitely good anyway.

And the people that are willing to believe such a thing want to counsel the rest of us on morality.

 

[ArtieE]

Agreed. This god will allegedly consign most of the human race to eternal torture for not worshiping it based on a flawed book that most never saw and many more couldn't find a reason to believe, and the believers in this god consider it infinitely good anyway.

And the people that are willing to believe such a thing want to counsel the rest of us on morality.

I'm afraid 1robin has defined his own god out of existence. There's no such thing as an omnipotent god who can't do something evil any more than there are married bachelors.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I'm afraid 1robin has defined his own god out of existence. There's no such thing as an omnipotent god who can't do something evil any more than there are married bachelors.

Agreed. The god of the Christian Bible is logically impossible. There may be gods, but if so, they won't have mutually exclusive qualities at the same time.

I've compiled a list of some of these logical impossibilities that I've concealed in the SPOILER below for those who don't like to see longer posts.

Spoiler

[1] An omniscient being that grants free will to others.

[2] An omniscient being with free will of its own - one that both knows what he will do, yet is able to make decisions ad hoc and change the future at will

[3] A perfect being needing to be worshiped

[4] A perfect being that changes its mind

[5] A perfect being that makes mistakes or contradicts itself

[6] A perfect being that creates or alters - things either weren't perfect then or aren't now.

[7] A non-spacial being being omnipresent

[8] An onmibenevolent being that permits evil and allows suffering

[9] A perfectly just being that punishes innocents such as descendants and bystanders.

[10] A merciful being that damns without hope of forgiveness from hell.

[11] Anything existing, persisting, thinking or acting outside of time. Those verbs, like all verbs, imply an interval of time with a before, a now, and an after

[12] An omnipresent being from whom we can be separated.

[13] An omniscient being that tests people

[14] An omnipotent being that wants anything

[15] An omnibenevolent being that exhibits wrath and tortures souls

[16] An omnibenevolent being that unleashes a master demon on earth

[17] An omniscient, omnipotent being that wants to be universally known (and loved) but whose existence is still in dispute by most of the world.

[18] An omniscient and omnipotent being that can both know everything that will happen and still change its mind and make things otherwise.

[19] An omnipotent being incapable of being in the presence of sin

[20] An omniscient, omnipotent god that loves and protects us, yet there is so much unnecessary suffering

[21] An omniscient and omnipotent god. If it knows what is coming next, it is powerless to change that.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Atheism isn't a conclusion. It is merely a "No" answer to the question, "Do you believe in a god or gods?"

I am aware, but the my point is that many atheists fall into stereotypes given by the god's holy little messengers

 

[Sha'irullah]

Agreed. The god of the Christian Bible is logically impossible. There may be gods, but if so, they won't have mutually exclusive qualities at the same time.

I've compiled a list of some of these logical impossibilities that I've concealed in the SPOILER below for those who don't like to see longer posts.

Spoiler

[1] An omniscient being that grants free will to others.

[2] An omniscient being with free will of its own - one that both knows what he will do, yet is able to make decisions ad hoc and change the future at will

[3] A perfect being needing to be worshiped

[4] A perfect being that changes its mind

[5] A perfect being that makes mistakes or contradicts itself

[6] A perfect being that creates or alters - things either weren't perfect then or aren't now.

[7] A non-spacial being being omnipresent

[8] An onmibenevolent being that permits evil and allows suffering

[9] A perfectly just being that punishes innocents such as descendants and bystanders.

[10] A merciful being that damns without hope of forgiveness from hell.

[11] Anything existing, persisting, thinking or acting outside of time. Those verbs, like all verbs, imply an interval of time with a before, a now, and an after

[12] An omnipresent being from whom we can be separated.

[13] An omniscient being that tests people

[14] An omnipotent being that wants anything

[15] An omnibenevolent being that exhibits wrath and tortures souls

[16] An omnibenevolent being that unleashes a master demon on earth

[17] An omniscient, omnipotent being that wants to be universally known (and loved) but whose existence is still in dispute by most of the world.

[18] An omniscient and omnipotent being that can both know everything that will happen and still change its mind and make things otherwise.

[19] An omnipotent being incapable of being in the presence of sin

[20] An omniscient, omnipotent god that loves and protects us, yet there is so much unnecessary suffering

[21] An omniscient and omnipotent god. If it knows what is coming next, it is powerless to change that.

So essentially this means only an Epicurean conception of Zeus could exist?

 

[1robin]

Sorry but I couldn't find any answer in there. If God says "if men have sex with each other kill them" is it objectively moral to kill them? If, later, God says that this doesn't apply anymore, is it then objectively immoral to kill them? I'm just trying to figure out if killing men for having sex with each other is objectively moral or immoral or if we have to consult God every time we feel like killing homosexuals to find out if it's presently objectively moral or immoral...

Dang it, my computer froze up and deleted my original post so you get the short version.

You combined three subjects as they were all linked.

Moral ontology:

1. God's nature makes homosexuality immoral at all times.

Command ontology:

1. God's commands can change even if the moral values they are based on never change.
2. According to DCT God's commands are objective.

Moral epistemology:

1. This is unrelated to moral ontology and command ontology.
2. This is about how we come to know what God commands.
3. The primary method by which we know what God commands, is by his revelation.
4. Just as we do, God gives different commands based on differing circumstances, even though his moral values don't change. And yes according to DCT they would be objective.
5. God said it was lawful to kill homosexuals concerning a specific culture, for a specific time, and for a specific purpose which has now been fulfilled. Christ instituted a new covenant 2000 years ago which did not change what was right or wrong, but what should be done about it. So there is no need to ask God anything about killing homosexuals and you should have already known that based on my previous posts.
6. Every time I look up one of these kill commands in Jewish sources I find all kinds of additional requirements that must be met. For example the command to kill disobedient children required both parents consent and a review by a temple elder. They all had to agree.

 

[joe1776]

. Every time I look up one of these kill commands in Jewish sources I find all kinds of additional requirements that must be met. For example the command to kill disobedient children required both parents consent and a review by a temple elder. They all had to agree.

Those additional requirements only became necessary because the consciences of all found the command morally offensive. The addition requirements allowed for self-deception: Well, no, of course they hadn't just ignored God's command.

 

[1robin]

What if you meet somebody who suddenly has a religious experience or becomes hyper religious and you do nothing? What if later it turns out that this person had a tumor? What would your conscience say?

It depends on what the circumstances are. It is was while we were walking around the lake and talking about politics then I might suggest a visit to a doctor. If it was in church during an alter call, I would probably praise Christ. Since an epilepsy explanation has at most accounted for .01% of religious experience I might as well suggest a lightening bolt out of the blue sky as to why a person sight was returned and hearing restored. That actually happened once (but in a thunderstorm) but it is a silly explanation for a guy who just had an operation to potentially restore both.

Old Testament prophet showed epileptic symptoms
Saint Paul and Epilepsy .pdf
There's a lot of information online about temporal lobe epilepsy and religious experiences.
You forgot Matthew 27.

Neither were diagnosed with epilepsy, and each performed actions epilepsy can't possibly explained. How does epilepsy accurately predict detailed and accurate prophecies? How does it heal the sick, how does it call down acts of God witnessed by hundreds?

Even in the sad little list of alternative natural explanations for supernatural claims epilepsy is near the bottom. I will respond to the rest of the post but I can't justify to time I have to discuss something this silly.

51 And behold, the veil of the temple was rent in two from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake; and the rocks were rent;

52 and the tombs were opened; and many bodies of the saints that had fallen asleep were raised; 53 and coming forth out of the tombs after his resurrection they entered into the holy city and appeared unto many."

I am surprised you brought these up, they are all external physical events of which many had multiple eyewitnesses.

I agree that it would be difficult to find natural explanations for this. Of course it would be nice with some independent corroboration but only Matthew seemed to notice this amazing miraculous event. Nobody else even bothered to mention it.

Paul also mentioned another 500 witnesses as well. I can quote you similar events quoted in multiple source, I think I can even quote you extra-biblical texts that record supernatural events, or the early explosion of a faith that would have died in the cradle had not there been eyewitnesses to supernatural events epilepsy can't possibly account for.

You seemed to think a single witness is not enough (despite college professors not holding that criteria to ignore anything), but Mathew was written within the lifetime of hundreds of these witnesses and not a single "I was there and that did not happen" competing claim exists. There were in total tens of thousands of witnesses to differing supernatural events, without a single textual denial in our possession. How much evidence do you need?

 

[1robin]

But others will. And you will be at a disadvantage for not knowing your "opponents" arguments.

If so, it will be because you would not quote the relevant meaningful parts of what you linked to. If I find what you quote meaningful I would go on and read the whole paper, but I am not reading a thousand words guessing at which 50 words apply to the argument.

Plus I already know that it is impossible to disprove a universal negative, even atheistic scholars agree with that virtually unanimously.

I have 13,000 posts, you have a few hundred, your questioning my ability says more about you than it does about me.

 

[1robin]

*sigh*

The way you formatted your post means that the most meaningful parts of it don't show up in your response. I will have to do your work for you. But I won't do so again. After reading the rest I changed my mind. I don't think any level of detailed explanation would help.

It's not my fault you can't see the relation. And you are right: You shouldn't be able to guess the content of the post YOU YOURSELF QUOTED. You should know it. Your own fault for not reading the post you were quoting. The quote was right there when you pressed the "reply" button on the post you were replying to. And i'm supposed to find an almost week old post from the depths of a very long thread just because you didn't bother reading what you were yourself quoting? Yeah, sounds just about right.

You are basically selling yourself short with your gross inability.

These word salads you keep throwing together are full of incoherencies, self contradictions, disconnects with the original context, and misrepresentations. If I thought more detail and clarity would help I would make the attempt, but to even whip into shape, what your trying so hard and ineffectually to say would require so much work and time I just can't justify it. When you make a coherent post I will respond, but this isn't one.

I have 13,000 posts, you have a few hundred, your sarcasm says more about you than me.

 

[1robin]

Do you want to discuss what morality based on the objective morals of your god would look like? See the tribal warfare in the Old Testament.

Tribal warfare is an act men engage in, I think you mean do I want to discuss the morality of what motivates biblical tribal warfare.

1. I see you do not really want to discuss the moral your worldview would actually justify.
Don't blame you they are horrific.
2. I have asked you several times if you want to discuss an OT war. I said several times you would have to be willing to drop everything else and to pick only 1 or 2 biblical wars to make the discussion mandatory.

So why are you asking me what I have offered to discuss several times? and not doing what is necessary to do what your asking about. I am fine with accounting for OT wars and battles, I have been waiting on you to enable us to do so.