Animals Doing What Animals Do...

[Kelp(p)]

Yeah, I've never seen someone insist on those modifiers the way you do, CR. To me, calling oneself an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist only indicates that one leans more in one direction than the other (and perhaps has certain features of that camp already) but still has significant issues with the side they lean toward. It also says nothing about whether one is a strong or a weak agnostic (though perhaps a strong agnostic would not be able to say whether they were an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist).

[ChaosRain]

The use of qualifiers is not something you'll find in Thomas Huxley's writings (the coiner of the word "agnostic").

Languages evolve over time. Regardless, when he defines "agnosticism", he himself even states exactly what I myself believe: "Agnosticism is of the essence of science, whether ancient or modern. It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe.". Thus, agnosticism by itself is simply a position on evidence. When it comes to religion, however, you are best advised to name yourself "agnostic atheist" or "agnostic theist", to signify which side of the spectrum you are on. Of course, you can just be an agnostic, but it doesn't tell you very much about your religious affiliation, if any.

So, in summary, yes, I was wrong. But not too far from the truth, in the grand scheme of things. Thank you for the correction; I do appreciate being corrected.

Yeah, I've never seen someone insist on those modifiers the way you do, CR. To me, calling oneself an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist only indicates that one leans more in one direction than the other (and perhaps has certain features of that camp already) but still has significant issues with the side they lean toward. It also says nothing about whether one is a strong or a weak agnostic (though perhaps a strong agnostic would not be able to say whether they were an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist).

That's the point. I like to categorize people, for a better understanding of where I should or shouldn't start, when debating or discussing things with them. Just being an agnostic doesn't tell me very much, if anything, about their religious or irreligious affiliations, so I generally ask for clarification. If one considers themselves to be a strong or weak agnostic, then I leave it to them to specify.

[seer]

Sure He does. That's what He did to the Egyptians in the Exodus.

I don't see the continuity between that and ordering the Israelites to slaughter the Amalekites- or ordering the people of Jonestown to commit mass suicide, which are essentially the same thing in the world of your morality (No, I'm not accusing you of believing in Jim Jones. I'm saying that if you knew God was telling you to force poison Flavor-Aid on your family, you would have to).

So if God ordered you to do something that you found morally objectionable you would refuse? What exactly is the difference between God taking out the Egyptians using nature, and using men to take out the Amalekites?

[Kelp(p)]

Why not then leave it up to them to tell you whether they consider themselves agnostic atheist or agnostic theist, though? You might as well just say that you consider straight up atheist and theist to be meaningless categories. Not everybody agrees on how much evidence or lack thereof is regarding the question of God.

[Kelp(p)]

So in essence Kelp, you have become your own god.

No more so than you have thinking that you can determine which of the many gods people worship is the true one to the exclusion of all others and that this God is also necessarily good. We're all beholden to reason, no matter how pious we are.

What exactly is the difference between God taking out the Egyptians using nature, and using men to take out the Amalekites?

One is a an observable fact of nature (back then it was, at least) and the other is men claiming that God told them to do something morally repugnant.

[ChaosRain]

Why not then leave it up to them to tell you whether they consider themselves agnostic atheist or agnostic theist, though?

Because I don't like to make assumptions when I make responses, so I get information first, before responding.

[seer]

You asked for a non-arbitrary standard. One has been provided.

If you don't think harming others is immoral, there is probably nothing else anyone could say that would persuade you.

Of course it is arbitrary. There are others that don't agree, or have a different standard.

[Kelp(p)]

Because I don't like to make assumptions when I make responses, so I get information first, before responding.

Alright.

[seer]

One is a an observable fact of nature (back then it was, at least) and the other is men claiming that God told them to do something morally repugnant.

I'm not sure what this means. Why would it morally repugnant for God to use men to take out Amalekites and not morally repugnant for God to take out the Egyptians using nature.

[Darth Executor]

Presumably the Jewish way as well.

Remember, seer gets his morality from God, via the Bible. The Bible says "How blessed will be the one who seizes and dashes your little ones Against the rock." Thus in seer's Christian morality (in specific circumstances) it is morally right to bash babies against rocks.

Psalm 137:9 is venting, not a moral imperative. It's no different from the way many people today vent with threats to kill someone or expressions of sexual conquest of each other's mothers.

See this is the difference between the Christian morality seer advocates and the atheist morality I advocate. I believe murder is wrong, and the needless and deliberate killing of innocents is necessarily murder. The problem I have with my morality is I have difficulty explaining to seer why murder is necessarily wrong.

No, that's the least of your problems. In fact it's not really a problem per se, it's a symptom of the reality that in an atheist (or Christian for that matter) world there is no reason to avoid murder just for its own sake. You find it distasteful because you are the product of quasi-Christian society. In reality there are material gains to be made from some kinds of murder (particularly the plundering of outgroups weaker than yours) which is why humanity has engaged in this type of behavior from its inception. And still does.

On the other hand, seer thinks murder is only wrong when God says it is. The problem he has with morality is that he does not understand why murder is necessarily wrong, so when Go says it is good to bash babies against rocks (or when seer believes God says that) seer will be there bashing babies against rocks.

But you don't understand why murder is necessarily wrong either, since after all you don't seem to be able to explain it, as you admit. Or even try, as every post you go off on some other tangent to avoid the subject. The reason why you can't explain it is because it's not true. It's just something you believe because humans are social animals who, in lesser or greater degrees, absorb morals from their peers, and the society around you has been thoroughly severed from reality. If you lived under Genghis Khan you probably wouldn't think twice about putting a city to the sword.

[Kelp(p)]

I'm not sure what this means. Why would it morally repugnant for God to use men to take out Amalekites and not morally repugnant for God to take out the Egyptians using nature.

One's sins are a matter between them and God. God would not order someone to carry out His punishments for Him. That's bringing in an unrelated party (I'm not talking about the Israelites defending themselves from Amalekite aggression. I'm talking about slaughtering them as vengeance).

[seer]

One's sins are a matter between them and God. God would not order someone to carry out His punishments for Him. That's bringing in an unrelated party (I'm not talking about the Israelites defending themselves from Amalekite aggression. I'm talking about slaughtering them as vengeance).

Doesn't Christ speak of angelic beings destroying wicked men at the end of the age? And wouldn't the destruction of the Amalekite be justice rather than vengeance no matter who carried it out?

[Enjolras]

Of course it is arbitrary. There are others that don't agree, or have a different standard.

Arbitrary: depending on individual discretion (as of a judge) and not fixed by law (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arbitrary)

How is "don't harm others" arbitrary? It does not matter whether a particular individual or a group of people agrees with the standard or not. How are you using the word 'arbitrary'? It seems as though you think it means "that about which all people everywhere always agree."

After you explain what you mean by arbitrary, please explain how your theistic system escapes this charge, whereas a non-theistic system does not.

[Darth Executor]

Arbitrary: depending on individual discretion (as of a judge) and not fixed by law (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arbitrary)

How is "don't harm others" arbitrary? It does not matter whether a particular individual or a group of people agrees with the standard or not. How are you using the word 'arbitrary'? It seems as though you think it means "that about which all people everywhere always agree."

It's arbitrary because it depends on individual discretion. In an atheist universe if I harm others and don't get punished, what meaning does "don't harm others" have?

After you explain what you mean by arbitrary, please explain how your theistic system escapes this charge, whereas a non-theistic system does not.

God's power is absolute. That makes His dictates laws (since they will always have negative consequences), rather than dependancy on the whims of individuals who cannot create laws.

[Kelp(p)]

Doesn't Christ speak of angelic beings destroying wicked men at the end of the age?

As I understand it, there are a growing number of Biblical scholars who don't even believe in angels. If that's where this logic leads me, it's a sacrifice I'm willing to make. I don't have an alternative answer to that at this time.

And wouldn't the destruction of the Amalekite be justice rather than vengeance no matter who carried it out?

When a judge sentences someone to jail time, it doesn't mean that it's acceptable for a private citizen to kidnap the convicted and hold them in their basement for the same amount of time, does it? God is the one who exacts vengeance, not men who claim they were told to do it by Him.