Christianity

[Gary Childress]

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.

The sad part is we're probably never going to be able to "objectively" ground morality the way you want to with any kind of certainty any more than anyone can say with certainty that Jesus was any more God incarnate than Hare Krishna was. Does that mean we must therefore give up thinking we ought to behave morally? People can try if they want and find out the hard way if that's their choice (or else what befalls them). You telling everyone that they can't believe in objective morality unless they believe in God is certainly not going to help them (let alone are you able to prove the assertion). Shit, you're a bigger advocate of nihilism than most Atheists I've encountered.

[Immanuel Can]

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.

The sad part is we're probably never going to be able to "objectively" ground morality the way you want to with any kind of certainty...

Well, "sad" it may be: but it's sad for the skeptics who love the theodicy problem. It's their issue: they raised it, and it's their tragedy that they can't make sense of their own allegation.

All it means for everybody else is that the secular skeptic doesn't have a real question about "evil" to pose in the first place.

[iambiguous]

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.

Note to others:

Please explain to me how and why this is not completely ridiculous.

Forget about me. He has these videos that he is convinced offers evidence that the Christian God resides in Heaven. He is convinced the evidence is so strong that it enabled him to jettison a Kierkegaardian leap of faith to God or to place a Pascalian wager. Instead, the videos were so powerful he is now able to believe that in fact if others watch them, they too will surely know that the Christian God resides in Heaven.

So why for the sake of others, is he unwilling to link us to the video he is convinced offers the most compelling proof of the Christian God's existence.

He wants others to choose carefully but he refuses to provide them with any concrete evidence...corroborative proof that will actually establish the incentive for them to accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior. And to achieve salvation for their very soul on Judgment Day.

Would anyone else here who had such hard evidence for the existence of their own God not bring it to our attention?

How can all if this not indicate instead that even he knows the evidence is such that a leap of faith or a wager would still be required.

[Gary Childress]

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.

The sad part is we're probably never going to be able to "objectively" ground morality the way you want to with any kind of certainty...

Well, "sad" it may be: but it's sad for the skeptics who love the theodicy problem. It's their issue: they raised it, and it's their tragedy that they can't make sense of their own allegation.

All it means for everybody else is that the secular skeptic doesn't have a real question about "evil" to pose in the first place.

No one "loves" the theodicy problem. Most of us find that it sucks. Where are these people who are apparently celebrating the theodicy problem? Has it ever occurred to you that the problem is there whether or not anyone wants or doesn't want it to be? Christians who claim a "loving" God seem to be the primary ones so obsessed with dismissing it that you'll resort to threats of nihilism toward anyone who even ponders it. It's painfully obvious to most more objective observers that you all would rather do that than face it. Don't expect sane and rational individuals to follow your delusions.

[Gary Childress]

Fucking Christian morons leading us to hell. Go live in Antarctica or somewhere you all can fuck up the world a little less.

[promethean75]

"a)Then it is nothing but a temporary and merely local sociological or psychological delusion, b) nothing objective underwrites it and c) that's the logical conclusion of that claim.

a) false

it is not a delusion that a certain few universally shared general ethical values exist among very many people, e.g., do not kill unless in self defense, do not steal, don't fuck your homeboy's wife (or husband in 2023), help someone who is on fire and drowning at the same time (if that's possible), stuff like that.

b) true

while these universally shared general ethical values exist objectively (and are not a delusion; there are existing people with these values and they are real), there are exceptions (hence my saying 'general values') when every one of these rules or mores or whatever are broken. so nothing objective underwrites or guarantees the practice of these values at all times throughout. however at all times throughout known history have these values been shared by the majority of people in any civilized sense. basic evolved behavior patterns originating from Maslow's hierarchy u might say and becoming more complex as society gets bigger. that's as objective as they get.

but talk of morality as objective or subjective is played out. it's an intersubjective Davidsonean triangulation.

c)a. false

follows deductively from halt function termination of finite logic string a).

c)b. true

same but logic string b).

[Immanuel Can]

No one "loves" the theodicy problem.

Actually, it's a favourite of the skeptical set. Of all the arguments trotted out to try to fend off the knowledge of God, it's always among them, you'll find.

[Immanuel Can]

"a)Then it is nothing but a temporary and merely local sociological or psychological delusion, b) nothing objective underwrites it and c) that's the logical conclusion of that claim.

a) false

it is not a delusion that a certain few universally shared general ethical values exist among very many people,

You mean like the belief that the world is flat once was? There's nothing about a bunch of people believing a thing that makes it true.

You're mistaking two issues for the same issue. One is whether or not people believe X; the other is whether or not the X they believe is rational and objectively real. It's only the second one that has any relevance to the theodicy problem.

But you're right about one thing: it's very odd that so many people shoul have the intuition that something is "evil," and that empirical fact might need some explaining from the moral skeptic set. It's certainly odd that mere material forces would ever produce such a thing.

[Gary Childress]

No one "loves" the theodicy problem.

Actually, it's a favourite of the skeptical set. Of all the arguments trotted out to try to fend off the knowledge of God, it's always among them, you'll find.

There is no "knowledge of God" to "fend off"! You have no idea what having a mind open to the truth is like, do you? All you want is to shut up those who point out things inconvenient to your "faith" (or I guess it's not really "faith" on your part since you want to believe there's proof out there). I'm sorry to inform you of this but you have yet to demonstrate any such proof (at least none that an elementary school student can't tear apart with an honest look) and I have yet to find any such proof myself.

[Gary Childress]

You mean like the belief that the world is flat once was? There's nothing about a bunch of people believing a thing that makes it true.

Good God, you really are a moron, aren't you? You have heard of Copernicus, Galileo! We'd still be believing the Earth is flat today if we listened to people like those who led the Early Church. Do you have any idea how much you evangelicals insult the intelligence of everyone else around you?

[attofishpi]

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!!!

NOTE to others:

Notice how iambiguous hasn't a leg to stand on with his agreeing with IC (that whether God exists or not makes a difference with respect to morality)

[Dubious]

No one "loves" the theodicy problem.

It's an "invented" problem based on a few bogus human inferences such as reconciling omnipotence, omnibenevolence and whatever other "omnis" are out there with the very palpable manifestation of evil always present in the world. It is therefore no problem compared to the very real ones we have which includes evil as indigenous to humans; not some abberation which begs to be reconciled with an assumed god. Theodicy as a concept is hardly worth a conversation, it means nothing. Least of all can it ever be resolved relative to that which doesn't exist.

[attofishpi]

Dubious, perhaps you could explain to me why iambiguous finds my statement laughable? (you are well educated within the realms of philosophy, where have I gone wrong?)

[Immanuel Can]

No one "loves" the theodicy problem.

Actually, it's a favourite of the skeptical set. Of all the arguments trotted out to try to fend off the knowledge of God, it's always among them, you'll find.

There is no "knowledge of God" to "fend off"! ...

Well, we'll see.

[Immanuel Can]

No one "loves" the theodicy problem.

It's an "invented" problem...

Of course, the only people who "invented" it were the secular skeptics who advanced the theodicy argument in the first place, and who seek to keep it viable.

But since they can't make it rationalize with their own worldview, they've got a serious logical problem.