Homophobic Trump...

[carpedm9587]

Who would be more rational than God?

If this god exists - nothing. But you cannot even show it exists.

So from my perspective - the question is, "how rational is it to hang your entire life belief on a thing that cannot be shown to be?"

[carpedm9587]

Keep in mind, he doesn't think God exists. IF his premise is true, being more rational than a nonexistent entity is a pretty low bar.

Exactly...


And far more concise than anything I've written...

[carpedm9587]

He already told me that I shouldn't enslave myself to another sentient being. But maybe I misunderstood him.

Let's ask.

Carp. For the sake of argument, let's say God does indeed exist and he did create us. Should we follow the moral code he tells us to?

Not blindly, no. Never blindly. I don't believe any sentient being should blindly abandon reason - god or no god. Indeed, if this god did exist, one would reasonably expect this god to make their moral framework clear and explain why, and to expect a being it created with sentience to apply that sentience.

Furthermore, morality is relative/subjective, so this being's morality is relative/subjective to itself. It is not clear that what is moral/immoral for a "supreme being" is automatically moral/immoral for a created being.

That's about as good as I can get. You're kind of in a "magic" world here. With such a fantastical being, apparently capable of doing anything (that is not irrational), knowing everything (that can be known), and incapable of "doing evil," who knows what reality would be like. But it's a little hard to believe it would be the reality we have.

[carpedm9587]

In his view, you're "enslaving" yourself to the unknown authors of the Bible, which would qualify as sentient beings. In any case, I agree with you that he's failing to apply his beliefs consistently within a single post, let alone between posts.

So given your argument-focused presentation of this observation - I'm curious to know what you think is inconsistent from post-to-post or within a given post?

[seer]

A thing is irrational or nonrational if it is not arrived at through the basic principles of reason - of logic. My subjectivity has nothing to do with it.

Really? So your preferences which you made clear are not arrived by logic ("true to me") are non-rational?

And so long as you do - and as long as your herd is a small group of long-dead men, your moral framework is locked in stone and you cannot defend it rationally. You don't even know if they arrived at it rationally.

Again there could be a number of good rational reasons for following the herd. To be more protected, to get ahead, to foster peace and civility, societal cohesion, etc....

What is irrational about those above considerations?

Seer - if you cannot see the difference between a preference for life, and a preference for a book, I have no idea how to even begin to proceed. Yes - you can indeed base your morality on your "preference for the book." That's pretty much been the point all along. And so long as that is your preference, you are locked into your long-dead herd - pretty much forever.

If both are subjective, and arrived at without deductive logic, then no I do not see a difference in kind as it pertains to rationality or non rationality. And of course I have a preference for life, that is one of the reasons why I am a Christian. You as an atheist, on the other hand, have a preference for death.

[Sparko]

Not blindly, no. Never blindly. I don't believe any sentient being should blindly abandon reason - god or no god. Indeed, if this god did exist, one would reasonably expect this god to make their moral framework clear and explain why, and to expect a being it created with sentience to apply that sentience.

Furthermore, morality is relative/subjective, so this being's morality is relative/subjective to itself. It is not clear that what is moral/immoral for a "supreme being" is automatically moral/immoral for a created being.

That's about as good as I can get. You're kind of in a "magic" world here. With such a fantastical being, apparently capable of doing anything (that is not irrational), knowing everything (that can be known), and incapable of "doing evil," who knows what reality would be like. But it's a little hard to believe it would be the reality we have.

Any being who could create an entire universe and us would logically be a lot more intelligent than we are. When you were a toddler, could you understand everything your parents told you to do? Did you require them to explain everything to you before you accepted that they were superior to you in knowledge and that you could trust them?

God would be orders of magnitude more superior than your parents were to you when you were a toddler. He designed us for a purpose. He is all knowing, all loving, all powerful. It is logical that we can trust his judgment. Even if we don't understand WHY. But you know, the bible does a pretty good job of explaining why as well as what. So your objection is not really a good one.

But assuming that it didn't and God just gave us a list of rules to follow why would you not think it was good to do so? He is benevolent and loving and wants the best for you and the other people he created.

And also if God exists, then morality is NOT subjective. It would be an objective truth of his creation based on his nature.

[One Bad Pig]

So given your argument-focused presentation of this observation - I'm curious to know what you think is inconsistent from post-to-post or within a given post?

Sparko pointed it out earlier today. I agree with his observation regarding that.

[carpedm9587]

Really? So your preferences which you made clear are not arrived by logic ("true to me") are non-rational?

I'm tempted to do what you do when the discussion gets complicated and hard to answer, and just cut it out of the discussion. However, I think this is important enough to merit examination. Ultimately, if you dig deep enough, we all start with simple preferences. Some we can rationally defend - others we cannot. I don't think I can defend the fact that I value "happiness" other than to point to the definition of the term - but that is circular. Valuing happiness seems self-evident to me.

Again - there is a world of difference between "valuing life" and "valuing happiness" and "valuing that book." That seems self-evident to me. If you disagree, I guess I have to leave you to it. Personally, I would never found my life on a book written by other people. Books inform and influence me. They do not dictate my rules for living.

Again there could be a number of good rational reasons for following the herd. To be more protected, to get ahead, to foster peace and civility, societal cohesion, etc....

What is irrational about those above considerations?

We're not talking about living with a herd, Seer - which has all of the characteristics you describe. We're talking about aligning our moral framework with it: turning over our moral decision-making to "the herd." And, in your case, your "herd" is a small group of long dead men, most of whom you can't identify, and whose original writings are lost to time, leaving you only with copies of copies of copies. And on this you are basing all of your rules for living.

If both are subjective, and arrived at without deductive logic, then no I do not see a difference in kind as it pertains to rationality or non rationality. And of course I have a preference for life, that is one of the reasons why I am a Christian. You as an atheist, on the other hand, have a preference for death.

Of course not. I keep forgetting that you're the guy who can't see a distinction between preference for pizza and preference for not killing/gassing children. It is really hard to have any kind of rational discussion with someone who lives X but says Y.

I'll leave the last word to you. I don't see this going anywhere we haven't been before.

[carpedm9587]

Any being who could create an entire universe and us would logically be a lot more intelligent than we are.

Why does this necessarily follow? Power is not equated with goodness OR rationality, as far as I know. How can you defend this claim?

When you were a toddler, could you understand everything your parents told you to do?

Of course not. I had no reasoning capability.

Did you require them to explain everything to you before you accepted that they were superior to you in knowledge and that you could trust them?

A child with no reasoning ability (or physical skills, for that matter) is completely dependent on adults for safety and life support - that is a fact of human life and development.

God would be orders of magnitude more superior than your parents were to you when you were a toddler.

But you cannot show that this god actually exists - nor can you show that this god HAS to be a reasoning being - or good. So you are basing every part of your moral framework on something you cannot show exists. You are - essentially - following the herd of old dead writers, correct?

He designed us for a purpose.

How do you know this?

He is all knowing, all loving, all powerful.

Setting aside the conflicts this arises, how do you know any of this is true?

It is logical that we can trust his judgment.

You have not shown this.

Even if we don't understand WHY. But you know, the bible does a pretty good job of explaining why as well as what.

And how do you know what is written in the bible reflects reality, rather than merely reflecting the mythology of its authors?

So your objection is not really a good one.

And I find you making a lot of unsubstantiated claims, Sparko. I know you believe all of these things. I find that you lack a basis - at least based on what you've written so far.

But assuming that it didn't and God just gave us a list of rules to follow why would you not think it was good to do so?

a) I have no basis for believing this creature actually exists and significant basis for believing that gods are the invention of the human mind. b) I have no idea what its attributes would be if it did. c) I have the ability to reason, and see no cause for abandoning it just because someone says I'm supposed to. A belief must be founded on some basis. If it is not, then we are left in a place where we can believe pretty much anything that makes us feel good. I have not desire to turn my life over to such a meaningless existence.

He is benevolent and loving and wants the best for you and the other people he created.

How do you know this is true?

And also if God exists, then morality is NOT subjective.

Sparko - if a god existed, this god is presumably also a sentient being capable of moralizing (unless one posits the existence of a non-sentient god?). The existence of this being does not change the fact that I am a sentient being capable of moralizing. This being's existence does not make morality any less relative/subjective. If I conclude that homosexuality is morally neutral (as I do), and this being says otherwise, then this being and I are going to disagree. This being has the same options for dealing with the distinction I do: ignore me, isolate/separate me, or contend with me. If the "hell" of Christian theology exists, and there is life after death, all we have is an eternal "prison" of sorts. As with the person we incarcerate on this mortal plane, incarceration can limit what the person can do - but it cannot force a change of moral stance. All it means is that this being, having more power than anyone (presumably), can force its will on others or punish them for not "obeying." If Congress passes an immoral law - I will not follow it and will practice civil disobedience. This god, if it existed, would be no different.

It would be an objective truth of his creation based on his nature.

This statement makes no linguistic sense to me.

At the end of the day, Sparko - I cannot imagine an "all good, all-powerful" being that is so shallow that it finds offense in the love between two people based on the genitals between their legs. If this being exists, and that is indeed it's rule - I'd rather be in this being's "hell" then spend eternity in the company of such a petty being. The edict makes no sense. Such a being would not be "good" as far as I am concerned, whatever it thinks of itself.

ETA: So here is the conundrum no one has ever provided an adequate response for. I my heart of hearts, I believe it is an immoral act to persecute homosexuals and trans-gendered people on the basis of their sexual identity. I believe the moral thing is to let people be who they are, and express their love with other, mature, consenting adults as they are drawn to. So shun them, call them "sinners," limit the services they can have, or in any way treat them differently is an immoral act. I'm not faking. I'm not pretending. That is what my heart and mind tell me.

So we have a conundrum. I either do what my conscience tells me is right - or I follow a principle I believe is wrong because someone says "god says so." If I do the latter, I cannot get away from the fact that I will be consciously doing something I fundamentally believe is wrong. That creates a bit of a conundrum doesn't it? Is this god you believe it going to see the intent to "do what is right?" Or is this god of yours going to eternally damn because I had the audacity to say, "I can't do what I believe to be wrong, no matter who tells me to?"

A curious dilemma.

[carpedm9587]

Sparko pointed it out earlier today. I agree with his observation regarding that.

That doesn't help a great deal. As best I can tell, Sparko was misunderstanding most of what I had written. But thanks for responding.

[seer]

I'm tempted to do what you do when the discussion gets complicated and hard to answer, and just cut it out of the discussion. However, I think this is important enough to merit examination. Ultimately, if you dig deep enough, we all start with simple preferences. Some we can rationally defend - others we cannot. I don't think I can defend the fact that I value "happiness" other than to point to the definition of the term - but that is circular. Valuing happiness seems self-evident to me.

Again - there is a world of difference between "valuing life" and "valuing happiness" and "valuing that book." That seems self-evident to me. If you disagree, I guess I have to leave you to it. Personally, I would never found my life on a book written by other people. Books inform and influence me. They do not dictate my rules for living.

We're not talking about living with a herd, Seer - which has all of the characteristics you describe. We're talking about aligning our moral framework with it: turning over our moral decision-making to "the herd." And, in your case, your "herd" is a small group of long dead men, most of whom you can't identify, and whose original writings are lost to time, leaving you only with copies of copies of copies. And on this you are basing all of your rules for living.

Of course not. I keep forgetting that you're the guy who can't see a distinction between preference for pizza and preference for not killing/gassing children. It is really hard to have any kind of rational discussion with someone who lives X but says Y.

I'll leave the last word to you. I don't see this going anywhere we haven't been before.

Here is the bottom line Carp, we are trying to decide what is moral and how we get there. You know my position based on biblical revelation. You don't accept that, fine, but what have you offered? You speak of moral reasoning but how does lead to moral answers? Look at it this way:

Carp begins with a subjective premise, he deductively make a case for homosexuality being moral in a committed union.

The Maoist starts with a subjective premise, he deductively make a case that dissidents should be executed.

Does your moral reasoning lead to homosexuality being moral? Does the Maoist's reasoning lead to the execution of dissidents being moral?

In neither case has moral reasoning told us anything moral? In other words the process is no better than following the herd or a Book for understanding morality.

[Tassman]

Here is the bottom line Carp, we are trying to decide what is moral and how we get there. You know my position based on biblical revelation. You don't accept that, fine, but what have you offered? You speak of moral reasoning but how does lead to moral answers? Look at it this way:

Carp begins with a subjective premise, he deductively make a case for homosexuality being moral in a committed union.

The Maoist starts with a subjective premise, he deductively make a case that dissidents should be executed.

Does your moral reasoning lead to homosexuality being moral? Does the Maoist's reasoning lead to the execution of dissidents being moral?

In neither case has moral reasoning told us anything moral? In other words the process is no better than following the herd or a Book for understanding morality.

And the theist starts with a subjective premise that God exists and has 'revealed' that homosexuality is bad. How is that any different?

[Sparko]

Why does this necessarily follow? Power is not equated with goodness OR rationality, as far as I know. How can you defend this claim?



Of course not. I had no reasoning capability.



A child with no reasoning ability (or physical skills, for that matter) is completely dependent on adults for safety and life support - that is a fact of human life and development.



But you cannot show that this god actually exists - nor can you show that this god HAS to be a reasoning being - or good. So you are basing every part of your moral framework on something you cannot show exists. You are - essentially - following the herd of old dead writers, correct?



How do you know this?



Setting aside the conflicts this arises, how do you know any of this is true?



You have not shown this.



And how do you know what is written in the bible reflects reality, rather than merely reflecting the mythology of its authors?



And I find you making a lot of unsubstantiated claims, Sparko. I know you believe all of these things. I find that you lack a basis - at least based on what you've written so far.



a) I have no basis for believing this creature actually exists and significant basis for believing that gods are the invention of the human mind. b) I have no idea what its attributes would be if it did. c) I have the ability to reason, and see no cause for abandoning it just because someone says I'm supposed to. A belief must be founded on some basis. If it is not, then we are left in a place where we can believe pretty much anything that makes us feel good. I have not desire to turn my life over to such a meaningless existence.



How do you know this is true?



Sparko - if a god existed, this god is presumably also a sentient being capable of moralizing (unless one posits the existence of a non-sentient god?). The existence of this being does not change the fact that I am a sentient being capable of moralizing. This being's existence does not make morality any less relative/subjective. If I conclude that homosexuality is morally neutral (as I do), and this being says otherwise, then this being and I are going to disagree. This being has the same options for dealing with the distinction I do: ignore me, isolate/separate me, or contend with me. If the "hell" of Christian theology exists, and there is life after death, all we have is an eternal "prison" of sorts. As with the person we incarcerate on this mortal plane, incarceration can limit what the person can do - but it cannot force a change of moral stance. All it means is that this being, having more power than anyone (presumably), can force its will on others or punish them for not "obeying." If Congress passes an immoral law - I will not follow it and will practice civil disobedience. This god, if it existed, would be no different.



This statement makes no linguistic sense to me.

At the end of the day, Sparko - I cannot imagine an "all good, all-powerful" being that is so shallow that it finds offense in the love between two people based on the genitals between their legs. If this being exists, and that is indeed it's rule - I'd rather be in this being's "hell" then spend eternity in the company of such a petty being. The edict makes no sense. Such a being would not be "good" as far as I am concerned, whatever it thinks of itself.

ETA: So here is the conundrum no one has ever provided an adequate response for. I my heart of hearts, I believe it is an immoral act to persecute homosexuals and trans-gendered people on the basis of their sexual identity. I believe the moral thing is to let people be who they are, and express their love with other, mature, consenting adults as they are drawn to. So shun them, call them "sinners," limit the services they can have, or in any way treat them differently is an immoral act. I'm not faking. I'm not pretending. That is what my heart and mind tell me.

So we have a conundrum. I either do what my conscience tells me is right - or I follow a principle I believe is wrong because someone says "god says so." If I do the latter, I cannot get away from the fact that I will be consciously doing something I fundamentally believe is wrong. That creates a bit of a conundrum doesn't it? Is this god you believe it going to see the intent to "do what is right?" Or is this god of yours going to eternally damn because I had the audacity to say, "I can't do what I believe to be wrong, no matter who tells me to?"

A curious dilemma.

[OK One Bad Pig, I guess I was right the first time - Even if God exists, as I supposed in the hypothetical, Carp would not accept his moral authority, as shown above. He is in rebellion]

Carp

You answered my question. You are not interested in rationality, but in rationalizing. You want to come up with a reason why your morality is right, while dismissing anyone who disagrees with you.

You are all over the place above. I gave a hypothetical on if you would listen to God's moral authority and in response, you argue that he doesn't exist, trying to avoid the question altogether even though I gave you a hypothetical. Then you run around trying to come up with excuse after excuse to reject him even if he does exist. Just like in real life.

Here is how I and other Christians think about morality: God created us. He designed our bodies, our minds, everything. In his image. He has a purpose for us, and since he is our creator, we are at our best when we align with his design and purpose for us. Part of that is how we treat one another. That is what we call morality. It is entirely rational as a creature to want to fulfill our created purpose and align ourselves with our creator. You are trying to use your mind that God created to reject him and find ways to NOT listen to him or fulfill his purpose for you. Your "rationality" is in fact irrational. You are broken.

[carpedm9587]

[OK One Bad Pig, I guess I was right the first time - Even if God exists, as I supposed in the hypothetical, Carp would not accept his moral authority, as shown above. He is in rebellion]

I am not finding this statement by OBP anywhere.

I gave a hypothetical on if you would listen to God's moral authority and in response, you argue that he doesn't exist, trying to avoid the question altogether even though I gave you a hypothetical.

Actually, I gave you an answer. Several places and several ways. I explained that if this god existed, its morality would be subjective, as would mine. I told you it is not clear that the morality of a supreme being would align with the morality of a finite being. It does not necessarily follow that this being is good. And I have a moral conscience. I would follow it. Ergo, collectively, this being would be an influencer, but could not override my moral autonomy.

Then you run around trying to come up with excuse after excuse to reject him even if he does exist. Just like in real life.

I reject the proposition that this god exists because a) I lack compelling evidence that it does, and 2) I possess compelling evidence that it doesn't (i.e., religious fragmentation, conflicts within the definition, human history, psychology, etc.)

Here is how I and other Christians think about morality: God created us. He designed our bodies, our minds, everything. In his image. He has a purpose for us, and since he is our creator, we are at our best when we align with his design and purpose for us. Part of that is how we treat one another. That is what we call morality. It is entirely rational as a creature to want to fulfill our created purpose and align ourselves with our creator.

I am aware of this. I used to say and believe all of these things. Eventually I came to realize I was wrong. That caused me to re-examine many parts of my beliefs, including my understanding of morality. That is how I ended up recognizing the relative/subjective nature of morality.

[Sparko]

I am not finding this statement by OBP anywhere.



Actually, I gave you an answer. Several places and several ways. I explained that if this god existed, its morality would be subjective, as would mine. I told you it is not clear that the morality of a supreme being would align with the morality of a finite being. It does not necessarily follow that this being is good. And I have a moral conscience. I would follow it. Ergo, collectively, this being would be an influencer, but could not override my moral autonomy.



I reject the proposition that this god exists because a) I lack compelling evidence that it does, and 2) I possess compelling evidence that it doesn't (i.e., religious fragmentation, conflicts within the definition, human history, psychology, etc.)



I am aware of this. I used to say and believe all of these things. Eventually I came to realize I was wrong. That caused me to re-examine many parts of my beliefs, including my understanding of morality. That is how I ended up recognizing the relative/subjective nature of morality.

Thanks for further confirming my last post, Carp.

IF God exists, and created us, then "good" would always be what he wants it to be and be based on his own nature. So he would be the objective moral standard. Because he designed us and the universe to be that way. How is that hard to understand?