Christianity

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7208
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by iambiguous »

Immanuel Can wrote: Mon May 29, 2023 10:35 pm
Gary Childress wrote: Mon May 29, 2023 10:30 pm If he's standing in front of you about to chop you up, is he somehow not "evil"?
On what basis? We don't call a lion "evil" for killing gazelles. We don't even call lions "evil" for killing each other (which they do, by the way).

If human beings are, as the secular accounts hold, nothing but a kind of animal or material being like any other, then there's no good or evil in anything they do. There's only whatever they do, according to their own natures.

What do we mean, then, when we call some of what they do "evil"?
Look, IC is, in my view, entirely correct here.

No God means no objective morality. Just all of these folks -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies -- claiming that their own particular secular Ism is either deontologically or ideologically or naturally the One True Path to salvation. At least on this side of the grave.

And, sure, maybe one of them is. Or maybe none of them are.

Let them actually demonstrate, given a particular context, why all men and women are in fact obligated to behave as they do.



No God and given the evolution of biological life on Earth, we are just the latest of what has evolved so far.

No God and the fact that those like Harry Baird are repulsed by certain behaviors becomes the reason they are immoral.



Of course, IC has absolutely no qualms in insisting that all of these folks...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions

...are likely to burn in Hell if they don't come around to accepting Jesus Christ as their personal savior.

But what truly baffles me here is that IC claims not to have mere faith in the existence of the Christian God, but knows for a fact that He resides in Heaven.

And He knows this because it says so in the Christian Bible. And because there are 16 YouTube videos that will convince the rest of us.

And yet with so much at stake on both sides of the grave, I can't even convince him to note the one video that he claims offers the most powerful evidence.

I mean, how do you explain that? Isn't he interested in saving souls? Shouldn't he be going everywhere that he can think of to make these videos known to the world?
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 9956
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: Christianity

Post by attofishpi »

iambiguous wrote: Mon May 29, 2023 11:13 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon May 29, 2023 10:35 pm
Gary Childress wrote: Mon May 29, 2023 10:30 pm If he's standing in front of you about to chop you up, is he somehow not "evil"?
On what basis? We don't call a lion "evil" for killing gazelles. We don't even call lions "evil" for killing each other (which they do, by the way).

If human beings are, as the secular accounts hold, nothing but a kind of animal or material being like any other, then there's no good or evil in anything they do. There's only whatever they do, according to their own natures.

What do we mean, then, when we call some of what they do "evil"?
Look, IC is, in my view, entirely correct here. No God means no objective morality.
No he's not, he and you are entirely incorrect. Just because atheists consider we are no other than animals with more intelligence - not created by an almighty - does not mean that humans, having such intelligence and social structures cannot be objective about moral code, and define what we consider is or is not evil.
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9558
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Christianity

Post by Harbal »

Immanuel Can wrote: Mon May 29, 2023 10:50 pm
Harbal wrote: Mon May 29, 2023 10:47 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon May 29, 2023 10:43 pm
It was the subject we were dealing with when you joined. If you're not interested, there's no reason to participate, I guess.
I thought we were talking about evil. :?
We are. But in the context of the theodicy argument.
:(
Gary Childress
Posts: 8117
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: Christianity

Post by Gary Childress »

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/a- ... 6816&ei=14

What could be worse than Christian fanatics? Perhaps Messianic Judaism? Get religious fundie whackos in charge and perhaps the above is what happens? They'll end up killing us all with their "faith" in their God.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Immanuel Can »

iambiguous wrote: Mon May 29, 2023 11:13 pm Isn't he interested in saving souls? Shouldn't he be going everywhere that he can think of to make these videos known to the world?
Hey, you have them. I gave them all to you. That you don't want to watch them is nothing I can change.

But we all answer for what we decide to do. One thing you'll not be saying, eventually, is "Nobody ever gave me a chance to know."

And that's enough. As Locke said, people cannot be "compelled to Heaven." They choose what they get.

Choose carefully.
Dubious
Posts: 4000
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Dubious »

iambiguous wrote: Mon May 29, 2023 11:13 pm
No God means no objective morality.
For that to be true requires the existence of god to also be objective and that's where the problem begins and remains perennial...which isn't really a problem at all, god or no god. We can't even be sure Jesus existed, but even if he did - and I don't dispute that it's likely, there were plenty of preachers around at the time - he was not essential to the creation of Christianity. That honor, if one can call it that, belongs almost exclusively to Paul as its initial architect without whom the history of the West would have been very different.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Immanuel Can »

Harbal wrote: Mon May 29, 2023 11:35 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon May 29, 2023 10:50 pm
Harbal wrote: Mon May 29, 2023 10:47 pm I thought we were talking about evil. :?
We are. But in the context of the theodicy argument.
:(
Why so sad? Not every conversation is one that one wishes to involve oneself in. You have every right to choose what you want to talk about, and what you don't.

The whole reason secularists need a definition of "evil" is that they insist that such a thing exists. If they didn't, then how could they ask,"How could God allow evil," since no such thing would then exist? Essentially, it would be like asking, "How can God allow leprechauns." The question would answer itself; the only difference is that whereas everybody agrees on what a leprechaun would be, people disagree about what is "evil." So it's one step more problematic than that, even.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Immanuel Can »

Dubious wrote: Mon May 29, 2023 11:50 pm
iambiguous wrote: Mon May 29, 2023 11:13 pm No God means no objective morality.
For that to be true requires the existence of god to also be objective
Quite the opposite. It means that if God doesn't exist (objectively), than neither does "morality," at least as an exercise referring to any objective qualities. It can exist only as a delusory practice, then, or as a merely subjective glossing over an inherently morally-indifferent situation.
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 9956
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: Christianity

Post by attofishpi »

-
Last edited by attofishpi on Tue May 30, 2023 12:15 am, edited 1 time in total.
Dubious
Posts: 4000
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Dubious »

Immanuel Can wrote: Mon May 29, 2023 11:54 pm
Dubious wrote: Mon May 29, 2023 11:50 pm
iambiguous wrote: Mon May 29, 2023 11:13 pm No God means no objective morality.
For that to be true requires the existence of god to also be objective
Quite the opposite. It means that if God doesn't exist (objectively), than neither does "morality," at least as an exercise referring to any objective qualities. It can exist only as a delusory practice, then, or as a merely subjective glossing over an inherently morally-indifferent situation.
Quite so! Exactly my point. But what's the loss; what's the difference? Morality exists whether denoted objective or not. In effect, it remains operational and doesn't require any god to pre-exist for morality to be considered objective.

If there is no proof or better stated, probability for god's objective existence, what rules and enforces is moralities' secular mandate.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Immanuel Can »

Dubious wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 12:12 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon May 29, 2023 11:54 pm
Dubious wrote: Mon May 29, 2023 11:50 pm
For that to be true requires the existence of god to also be objective
Quite the opposite. It means that if God doesn't exist (objectively), than neither does "morality," at least as an exercise referring to any objective qualities. It can exist only as a delusory practice, then, or as a merely subjective glossing over an inherently morally-indifferent situation.
Quite so! Exactly my point. But what's the loss; what's the difference? Morality exists whether denoted objective or not.
The question is whether it "exists" as a social or personal delusion, or "exists" as something with legitimate reference to reality.

Either way, one could use the word "exists" but it changes everything whether we're looking for a delusion or a reality. I doubt the skeptics want to see their theodicy problem reduced to something like, "Why would God allow people to have sociological/personal opinions?" Put that way, it's a dead tame question, for one thing. For another, I don't think it gets near to the point they seem to want to make.

So I think even they would not say it makes no difference whether we understand "evil" as subjective or objective. That is, if they're thinking clearly at all.
promethean75
Posts: 4932
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by promethean75 »

"It means that if God doesn't exist (objectively), than neither does "morality," at least as an exercise referring to any objective qualities."

morality can't be objective (see Holmes) if this objectivity is imperative and not hypothetical. there is no such thing as Good, but there are goods... good ways to achieve ends. so for instance it is not Good to not shoot your neighbor, but it is good to not shoot your neighbor if your end - life and liberty etc. - is what you're after... and not shooting your neighbor is a good way, nay, a great way, to achieve that end.

and that life and liberty are themselves void of any objective goodness or necessity (neither have to happen) doesn't mean intelligent beings can't intersubjectively agree that they want life and liberty and that not shooting your neighbor is good as a means to that end.

that's as far as morality can go and that's being generous. ethical valuations are like exclamations and really say nothing about the world. non-cognitivists like your homegirl Astro Cat and the emotivists would say the only cognitive content in your expression 'beating IC with a closed umbrella is wrong!' is equivalent to the expression 'boo that sucks' and tells us nothing more than the fact that u don't like it.

but siriusly drop any ethical more, commandment or instruction coupled with a valuation (good, bad, wrong, right etc) and I'll show u how it's gotta be hypothetically categorical.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Immanuel Can »

promethean75 wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 12:30 am
"It means that if God doesn't exist (objectively), than neither does "morality," at least as an exercise referring to any objective qualities."
morality can't be objective
Then it is nothing but a temporary and merely local sociological or psychological delusion. Nothing objective underwrites it. That's the logical conclusion of that claim.

But you can't hold God responsible to live up to somebody's temporary and local delusion. Nobody promised anybody he would or should. So the theodicy problem is dead again.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7208
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by iambiguous »

attofishpi wrote: Mon May 29, 2023 11:23 pm
iambiguous wrote: Mon May 29, 2023 11:13 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon May 29, 2023 10:35 pm
On what basis? We don't call a lion "evil" for killing gazelles. We don't even call lions "evil" for killing each other (which they do, by the way).

If human beings are, as the secular accounts hold, nothing but a kind of animal or material being like any other, then there's no good or evil in anything they do. There's only whatever they do, according to their own natures.

What do we mean, then, when we call some of what they do "evil"?
Look, IC is, in my view, entirely correct here. No God means no objective morality.
No he's not, he and you are entirely incorrect. Just because atheists consider we are no other than animals with more intelligence - not created by an almighty - does not mean that humans, having such intelligence and social structures cannot be objective about moral code, and define what we consider is or is not evil.
Now that's entertainment!!! :wink:
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 9956
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: Christianity

Post by attofishpi »

iambiguous wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 12:35 am
attofishpi wrote: Mon May 29, 2023 11:23 pm
iambiguous wrote: Mon May 29, 2023 11:13 pm

Look, IC is, in my view, entirely correct here. No God means no objective morality.
No he's not, he and you are entirely incorrect. Just because atheists consider we are no other than animals with more intelligence - not created by an almighty - does not mean that humans, having such intelligence and social structures cannot be objective about moral code, and define what we consider is or is not evil.
Now that's entertainment!!! :wink:
Please explain.
Post Reply