Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2021 22:33:45 GMT
I've had this discussion with countless religion peddlers (I am trying to embrace a vast category of people) and it almost always comes down to this: God is moral, it's man ( it's the generic term, not man as opposed to woman) that's immoral. Also God is good, the evil comes from man and his choices.
Ok, so let's eliminate man from the equation, or formula, where does that leave us... Well, in pre-man nature.
Take the lion for example, lions are evolved, high on the food chain animals, they're superior to dogs in every way including mental and most people think dogs are intelligent...
Dominant male lions kill their young, they've existed for (paleontology tells us) about twenty five million years and therefore they've been killing their young for that time. Why do they do that? Because the female lion won't have sex as long as she's in charge of cubs. The lion gets sexual urges and the lioness won't have it. So what does he do, he kills the cubs, so he can have sex again, until the next time...
Statistically, what is the most likely way for a lion cub to die? killed by its own father.
Of course the rate of reproduction and the number of cubs in a litter is high, so lions don't go extinct, at least not because of this, (they could go extinct because of man but that's another story).
Basically every dominant male lion is the killer of countless of his own cubs.
In a way you could say that that's God way of validating this behavior, IE increasing the rate of reproduction to compensate for a massacre...
Can you honestly say that a father killing his offspring is moral?
So is God moral?
I think not.
|
|
bama beau
Legend
Fish will piss anywhere. They just live in water.
Posts: 11,579
|
Post by bama beau on Jan 30, 2021 8:17:29 GMT
Abraham meets Darwin, if Darwin was Freud.
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Jan 30, 2021 16:07:01 GMT
Lions are animals. Do you expect animals to behave "morally" as some kind of reflection of God? Do animals make "choices" along moral lines?
As a rejoinder, if "God doesn't exist," what even is "morality"? How might it be distinguished from preference (individual or collective)?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2021 17:27:21 GMT
Lions are animals. Do you expect animals to behave "morally" as some kind of reflection of God? Do animals make "choices" along moral lines? As a rejoinder, if "God doesn't exist," what even is "morality"? How might it be distinguished from preference (individual or collective)? What I mean is (and what once again you've stubbornly decided not to understand) the situation of a father killing his own offspring as a matter of course is very high on most people's immorality list especially the religious ones and you can't deny that. Who's responsible, the lion, definitely not, he can't be responsible for something that his very nature forces him to do, so the only one left, the only one to point a (figurative) finger at is God. Who else? Your rejoinder is invalid. I was using the word "moral" as one of your words not mine (you still don't get these nuances do you?) I guess I should have phrased it differently. Let's try this: Is God moral, according to the understanding of the word "moral" by those who say they believe in a God. And if you find a way to nitpick here then I'll rephrase it differently yet. You won't win this debate with your usual semantic tricks. Keep in mind (it's not too much to ask, is it?) that I am not even arguing that god doesn't exist.
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Jan 30, 2021 22:10:37 GMT
Lions are animals. Do you expect animals to behave "morally" as some kind of reflection of God? Do animals make "choices" along moral lines? As a rejoinder, if "God doesn't exist," what even is "morality"? How might it be distinguished from preference (individual or collective)? What I mean is (and what once again you've stubbornly decided not to understand) the situation of a father killing his own offspring as a matter of course is very high on most people's immorality list especially the religious ones and you can't deny that. Who's responsible, the lion, definitely not, he can't be responsible for something that his very nature forces him to do, so the only one left, the only one to point a (figurative) finger at is God. Who else? Your rejoinder is invalid. I was using the word "moral" as one of your words not mine (you still don't get these nuances do you?) I guess I should have phrased it differently. Let's try this: Is God moral, according to the understanding of the word "moral" by those who say they believe in a God. And if you find a way to nitpick here then I'll rephrase it differently yet. You won't win this debate with your usual semantic tricks. Keep in mind (it's not too much to ask, is it?) that I am not even arguing that god doesn't exist. It's simple. If there is no God, "morality" does not exist and your question is meaningless. I think what you're trying to argue is that God as a "moral agent" or "source of morality" is inherently logically inconsistent. Is that what you're arguing? You could try to make that argument (although I don't think the argument is supported by evidence), but using the behaviour of lions as evidence is not a strong argument. Their behaviour certainly doesn't threaten their own existence, which, while not an argument for morality, is hardly an argument against the existence of morality, unless (as I said) you are suggesting that lions are moral agents. I think, though, that the crux of the conversation might centre around: "according to the understanding of the word 'moral' by those who say they believe in a God." Are you sure we're on the same page on that score? Because if not, we won't get far.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2021 8:34:46 GMT
It's simple. If there is no God, "morality" does not exist and your question is meaningless. I explicitly said that I wasn't questioning the existence of god! How can you miss that? So this part of your statement is unresponsive, therefore irrelevant. IOW, it's meaningless rhetoric. You get that? Yeah, let's put it that way. The lions kill their offspring because of how god made them. How is that not relevant? How is god not answerable for his own creation? You don't it's supported by evidence! You starting to sound like the fanatics who deny the scientific proof that they are witnessing. You people (and yes in that respect you don't speak as an individual, you speak as a member of a community, specialised in denial and obfuscation), have a definition of morality and I don't necessarily know what it is (and it's not necessary for my point) but I am willing to bet that your morality says that a father killing his son is wrong. Or maybe I am mistaken, maybe you think that a father killing his son is moral. So how can you say that god is moral? I mean he basically created an animal that will kill his offspring repeatedly and you know what it doesn't even serve any purpose (aside for allowing the lion to have sex) because he kills them regardless of their survival skills, he kills the weak and the strong alike. I've seen it in a documentary it's so fast you don't even realize it happened. The lion is a perfect killing machine, it can kill you in a second!! In the 70's I saw in a live show what a lion cub can do to a person... It's chilling. Some nutball was walking a lion cub as if it was a dog. The beast was somewhere between a baby lion and an adult one and so it didn't look too scary. Too bad because the lady host got a little too close and the lion gashed her forearm from the elbow to the wrist (it was summer and she wasn't wearing sleeves), the poor woman started crying and they cut the show after that but not soon enough to prevent us from seeing what happened. She was transported to the ER and I later learned that the guy was sued for everything he's got by her lawyers. I can't say I felt sorry for the asshole. His beast could have maimed a kid or even killed one. People like that disgust me. Like another asshole who was attacked and maimed by his own illegally imported dog (whose breed was declared unsafe and forbidden by our government). THat's what I call poetic justice. I mean lucky for us that his dog attacked him first and not some kid of his neighborhood!! Anyway, the point is that the lion has absolutely no difficulty killing his offspring, and he wouldn't do it if not for his sexual urges and the fact that the lioness won't have sex with him while she has cubs in charge. I mean how can you believe that a so-called creator who let something like that happen, millions or maybe even billions of time for millions of years, would care about mankind's well being is beyond me. I know you try to sterilize things by using some kind of emotionless rhetoric and I assure you it's quite transparent. let's put it in simple terms: Your god is crap.
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Feb 1, 2021 16:01:00 GMT
It's simple. If there is no God, "morality" does not exist and your question is meaningless. I explicitly said that I wasn't questioning the existence of god! How can you miss that? So this part of your statement is unresponsive, therefore irrelevant. IOW, it's meaningless rhetoric. You get that? Do you believe that "morality" exists? If it does, on what basis? Is "morality" somehow "higher" than God so that God would be "subject" to it? Here's the problem. You seem to be assuming that the behaviour of the lions is "immoral" and thus that God is responsible for it. Is that your premise? That the lions' behaviour is "immoral"? If it is, can you support that premise? If it's not, then what is the point of your example? So...you're attacking "my" (our?) understanding of morality without understanding what it is? Why don't we start with the (or "a") definition of morality? Wouldn't that make more sense? Why are animals subject to some kind of moral code?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2021 17:26:05 GMT
MFA, stop fucking up your posts. I can't make heads or tails of your last post.
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Feb 3, 2021 16:00:40 GMT
MFA, stop fucking up your posts. I can't make heads or tails of your last post. I made one "quote" correction. It's not really that difficult.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2021 17:53:53 GMT
Do you believe that "morality" exists? If it does, on what basis? Is "morality" somehow "higher" than God so that God would be "subject" to it? I don't believe that morality exists. I believe there is a code of conduct that civilized people should go by but outside of some absolutes like not murder people, for example, it's pretty much up to each people what that code should be, IMO it should pretty much be to be kind and helpful within limits... Anyway, as I've evidently failed to convey (I wonder why), this is not about MY definition of morality it is about the definition of the people who say they believe in a god. Now, what kind of a ruler thinks he's above the rules he imposes on his subjects? If god doesn't follow his own rules that means he's an asshole from the get-go. Why would you praise an asshole? And why do you think an asshole would keep his word and give you eternal life? For all you know he's lying and there is nothing after death. So yeah, I think god should follow his own rules. The lion kills his offspring to have sex. If you don't think there is anything wrong with a father killing his children for such a reason, that means there is something wrong with you. What's so hard to understand here? Tell me! I don't need to know every detail of your morality to surmise that it includes that a father killing his children is a no-no. Animals are not but god should be.
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Feb 3, 2021 21:15:37 GMT
I don't believe that morality exists. I believe there is a code of conduct that civilized people should go by but outside of some absolutes like not murder people, for example, it's pretty much up to each people what that code should be, IMO it should pretty much be to be kind and helpful within limits... Anyway, as I've evidently failed to convey (I wonder why), this is not about MY definition of morality it is about the definition of the people who say they believe in a god. Now, what kind of a ruler thinks he's above the rules he imposes on his subjects? The problem is that lions are not "moral agents" and not subject to moral assessment. There's also something wrong with the idea that "God imposes rules on his subjects." Did you ever read C.S. Lewis's "moral argument"? Would you argue that God is being inconsistent here? Or that his "rules" are "bad"? The lion is not a "father."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2021 21:57:52 GMT
...The lion is not a "father." Ok, so that's your quibble. A few million years ago our ancestors were no more evolved than lions... As a matter of fact ten thousand years ago, which is a lot less than millions of years, cannibalism among humans was a common thing... Some people even believe that by eating bodies you somehow got a transfer of strength and even wisdom from the dead person to yourself... Reminds you of anything? Yeah, that sounds a lot like the Christian ritual. A religion that glorifies symbolic cannibalism... No wonder there are so many sick variations of it... Anyway, a lion killing his offspring is similar to our ancestors doing the same. For three-billion years plus man didn't exist, so you have to wonder what god was doing by then... Plus there's the whole butterfly effect thing... I mean evolution is essentially unpredictable... You could go back twenty million years and change a single detail and man would never exist, go back further still and instead of mammals being the dominant species you get octopuses or some other type we haven't seen yet. The humanoid form is not inevitable, it's just one, very rare form among countless... I think that's the thing I find the most laughably incorrect in your religion, it's the idea that some entity could predict three billion years ago the path followed by evolution when ten to the hundred universes couldn't contain that information. So god doesn't give a shit about the lion-cubs, just as he didn't give two shits about our ancestors but somehow we're supposed to believe that for us who are so much more "evolved" he's prepared a nice cozy eternal life with lots and lots of terrain all made of magic matter... Yeah, whatever...
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Feb 3, 2021 22:51:36 GMT
...The lion is not a "father." Ok, so that's your quibble. A few million years ago our ancestors were no more evolved than lions... As a matter of fact ten thousand years ago, which is a lot less than millions of years, cannibalism among humans was a common thing... Some people even believe that by eating bodies you somehow got a transfer of strength and even wisdom from the dead person to yourself... Reminds you of anything? Yeah, that sounds a lot like the Christian ritual. A religion that glorifies symbolic cannibalism... No wonder there are so many sick variations of it... Anyway, a lion killing his offspring is similar to our ancestors doing the same. For three-billion years plus man didn't exist, so you have to wonder what god was doing by then... Plus there's the whole butterfly effect thing... I mean evolution is essentially unpredictable... You could go back twenty million years and change a single detail and man would never exist, go back further still and instead of mammals being the dominant species you get octopuses or some other type we haven't seen yet. The humanoid form is not inevitable, it's just one, very rare form among countless... I think that's the thing I find the most laughably incorrect in your religion, it's the idea that some entity could predict three billion years ago the path followed by evolution when ten to the hundred universes couldn't contain that information. So god doesn't give a shit about the lion-cubs, just as he didn't give two shits about our ancestors but somehow we're supposed to believe that for us who are so much more "evolved" he's prepared a nice cozy eternal life with lots and lots of terrain all made of magic matter... Yeah, whatever... It isn't that "God doesn't give a shit about"... What are you insisting he should give a shit about? Baby butterflies? Baby fish? Baby bacteria? As for God being "able to predict the path of evolution," um...why not? Isn't he..."God"? Also, being outside this universe, he wouldn't have to "predict" anything. He has access to the entire timeline. He could tinker as he wills, when he wills, where he wills. Finally, when was the "first human"? What is the transition from "animal" to "human"? When did God first require moral behaviour from humans? I don't have an answer to all those questions--they're open questions. But to suggest that "humans a few million years ago" actually were humans presumes a lot...don't you think?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2021 8:16:12 GMT
... As for God being "able to predict the path of evolution," um...why not? Isn't he..."God"? Also, being outside this universe, he wouldn't have to "predict" anything. He has access to the entire timeline. He could tinker as he wills, when he wills, where he wills. There's no such thing as "outside the universe", the universe is all there is. You've created this scienfictionesque fantasy in your mind and now you're trying to sell it as an explanation for the impossible. So you think there's a magic daddy out there "outside the universe" tinkering with an infinity of universes changing a particle here a particle there until he gets the universe he wants. I won't lie to you, I find that kind of crap even more unbelievable than the genuine fairy-tales with fairies, witches, and whatnot. The shit you have to make up to convince yourself that you'll go someday to a paradise where you'll be happy forever... I love it that you say, he wouldn't have to predict anything... You've replaced intelligent design by "intelligent pseudo randomness" Basically you're saying that what appears to be random is in fact the result of billions of billions.. of micro modifications... God is the master fucker he makes changes while maintaining a pretense of randomness. Like when an old woman slips falls and breaks her brittle bones, this is only apparently an accident in fact in billions of alternate timelines she didn't break her bones but god made sure to choose that one because he is a major fucking asshole, is that what you're saying? of course not because even though he's the cause of everything somehow he manages in your mind to eschew responsibility for old people dying horribly. When a child is raped god could avoid that by going back in time and changing a few particles but he won't do that because he likes it. That's exactly what he wanted to have for the child. Because he's a fucking sadist. Is that what you're saying? of course not because in your mind the child being raped is "inevitable". I once heard one of those smart asses ministers saying that god got the whole universe under control every single particle of it. So when a child is being raped that's god doing it to him then? Right? You can't have one without the other... You're delusional. Your "outside the universe" is bullshit that you probably got from some second rate sci. fi. novel but apparently that helps you sleep at night. That's your fairy-tale bullshit: So there's an outside the universe and in this outside the universe lives a super-being capable of anything that can solve all my wishes if he wanted to but for some reason, he doesn't want to, however after I am dead he will provide me with a magical body that will live forever in a fairy-tale land where everyone is happy and all problems are solved You don't see how bullshitty this is? Of course, you don't!!! Well, whatever... believe what you wish... who cares? Not me at this point... Apparently, your god doesn't have to require anything since he can change everything one particle at a time if need be. So what happens even if it seems random is in fact god's plan... Yeah, whatever... In the meantime, there's a place where everyone that god likes for some obscure reason has been provided (or will be provided) a new body made of magic matter that will be young healthy, and happy for all eternity... I mean if God can do that then what's the point of this universe? God said to himself, I could create a magical universe where everyone would live forever and be happy and young and whatnot but instead, I'll create a shitty one, and only a chosen few will get to the magical universe the numerous others will be tortured for eternity... Yeah, that doesn't sound like the fantasy world of a psychopath... not at all!!!
|
|
bama beau
Legend
Fish will piss anywhere. They just live in water.
Posts: 11,579
|
Post by bama beau on Feb 5, 2021 6:45:18 GMT
Lions are animals. Do you expect animals to behave "morally" as some kind of reflection of God? Do animals make "choices" along moral lines? Who is to say that they don't? Whatever the lion preys upon survives. Only other alpha species co-exist with an alpha predator. Whatever is morality to them is at least as moral as what is morality to most humans.
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Feb 5, 2021 16:53:31 GMT
... As for God being "able to predict the path of evolution," um...why not? Isn't he..."God"? Also, being outside this universe, he wouldn't have to "predict" anything. He has access to the entire timeline. He could tinker as he wills, when he wills, where he wills. There's no such thing as "outside the universe", the universe is all there is. You've created this scienfictionesque fantasy in your mind and now you're trying to sell it as an explanation for the impossible. So you think there's a magic daddy out there "outside the universe" tinkering with an infinity of universes changing a particle here a particle there until he gets the universe he wants. I won't lie to you, I find that kind of crap even more unbelievable than the genuine fairy-tales with fairies, witches, and whatnot. The shit you have to make up to convince yourself that you'll go someday to a paradise where you'll be happy forever... I love it that you say, he wouldn't have to predict anything... You've replaced intelligent design by "intelligent pseudo randomness" Basically you're saying that what appears to be random is in fact the result of billions of billions.. of micro modifications... God is the master fucker he makes changes while maintaining a pretense of randomness. Like when an old woman slips falls and breaks her brittle bones, this is only apparently an accident in fact in billions of alternate timelines she didn't break her bones but god made sure to choose that one because he is a major fucking asshole, is that what you're saying? of course not because even though he's the cause of everything somehow he manages in your mind to eschew responsibility for old people dying horribly. When a child is raped god could avoid that by going back in time and changing a few particles but he won't do that because he likes it. That's exactly what he wanted to have for the child. Because he's a fucking sadist. Is that what you're saying? of course not because in your mind the child being raped is "inevitable". I once heard one of those smart asses ministers saying that god got the whole universe under control every single particle of it. So when a child is being raped that's god doing it to him then? Right? You can't have one without the other... You're delusional. Your "outside the universe" is bullshit that you probably got from some second rate sci. fi. novel but apparently that helps you sleep at night. That's your fairy-tale bullshit: So there's an outside the universe and in this outside the universe lives a super-being capable of anything that can solve all my wishes if he wanted to but for some reason, he doesn't want to, however after I am dead he will provide me with a magical body that will live forever in a fairy-tale land where everyone is happy and all problems are solved You don't see how bullshitty this is? Of course, you don't!!! Well, whatever... believe what you wish... who cares? Not me at this point... Apparently, your god doesn't have to require anything since he can change everything one particle at a time if need be. So what happens even if it seems random is in fact god's plan... Yeah, whatever... In the meantime, there's a place where everyone that god likes for some obscure reason has been provided (or will be provided) a new body made of magic matter that will be young healthy, and happy for all eternity... I mean if God can do that then what's the point of this universe? God said to himself, I could create a magical universe where everyone would live forever and be happy and young and whatnot but instead, I'll create a shitty one, and only a chosen few will get to the magical universe the numerous others will be tortured for eternity... Yeah, that doesn't sound like the fantasy world of a psychopath... not at all!!! You're coming across very angry. Also, you continually demonstrate a binary mode of thinking based on erroneous presumptions that inhibits rational conversation. It would have been nice I guess, but I'm not going to waste my time.
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Feb 5, 2021 16:57:32 GMT
Lions are animals. Do you expect animals to behave "morally" as some kind of reflection of God? Do animals make "choices" along moral lines? Who is to say that they don't? Whatever the lion preys upon survives. Only other alpha species co-exist with an alpha predator. Whatever is morality to them is at least as moral as what is morality to most humans. Okay, sure. So two followup questions: 1) As long as it's an "open question," isn't it hard to build a case on it? 2) If lions have a "moral code to them," then it's not "the same moral code" than would apply to humans? Or, as in the case of the argument, to God? That could create a whole bunch more problems, and would render the initial argument useless, because then God himself might be subject to a different moral code than humans. Which, of course, begs the question: can/would God be subject to a "moral code"? Wouldn't that effectively put the moral code "above God"?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2021 21:48:13 GMT
You're coming across very angry. You're coming across as someone who's out of arguments. Meaning, I don't agree with you. Your "out of time" crap doesn't qualify as rational. It qualifies as something you've pulled out of your ass. If that's the kind of stuff you're going to throw in this discussion, you can keep it to yourself. You're no better than these ignorant morons who say that god can do whatever he wants and that's the end of it. Since you know that that doesn't sound very smart, you made up this stupid idea of someone being out of time and changing one proton here, one atom of hydrogen there until he gets the universe he wanted. But I am sorry, this bullshit isn't going to fly with me. You can't oppose something as elaborate and solid as "scientific truth" with "things you just made up on the spot" Likewise.
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Feb 5, 2021 21:58:25 GMT
Listen, you can't respond to anything I say with any substance. You provide meaningless misrepresentative rants that don't even stay on topic, introducing all kinds of tangential fanciful inventions of what "me and my kind must believe." Trying to respond to that is a waste of time. You're obviously intelligent. What's not obvious is that you intend to have a meaningful conversation.
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Feb 5, 2021 22:02:16 GMT
If you ARE interested in a meaningful conversation, try encapsulating my position in a way that I would agree with. As I have tried (and sometimes succeeded) in doing with you. As it is, I spend most of my time correcting your wild misrepresentations.
|
|