Humanity... - Armor Games Community

332	112858

offline

Kennethhartanto

241 posts

Constable

Posted April 28, '14 12:42pm UTC

Sorry, I meant "our design", as in, the design with which we were created, not the design that we, ourselves, specified. As you say it was His doing. It is therefore still His responsibility and His fault.

The world we live on, assuming God's existence, is His creation. So it follows that God IS responsible for what he created. that is true, but it was never a mistake or a fault in God's part. assuming he created all moral values we known to use and he also use those ( depicted in the bible ) in relations to us, then He was never at fault. there are numerous sides in this point and the only known side in this matter that defies the values He created are, well humans (demons and devils can also be added, but i don't believe they really exist). so it was a mistake on parts of the defiant humans, and i meant parts not all (in case you are wondering i'm not referring to either you or anyone in this thread).

What exactly are you trying to prove here?

I am trying to prove that Moral values of good and bad cannot be escaped by God once it was created, so he lost his neutrality. prior to it's creation however, He WAS obviously neutral, as there is nothing to judge him with. And to prove that the ones creating evil isn't bad.

Let me ask you this. Is the creators of the atomic bomb can be called "killers or murderers" because they kill a hell of a lot of people? does creating gunpowder equals guns that kill people? Would you be a rapist if you "created" (give birth) to a future rapist?

i know that they don't know what would happen in the future but God knows, which is the greatest difference between both. But even if He knew the consequence of creating a moral system, he did it anyway, persisting into today. Since if can't be an "accident" (Having power to know the future), it was not a grievous error, rather it was intended from the start. And if it was intended, it is most plausible that He created it to benefit Himself. However, we don't know in what way it benefits Him much more so than it's drawbacks so much it persist until today. However He won't(or can't) misuse His power to break His own rules. that's why i Believe he wasn't at fault.

I'll admit, i made a mistake in this part

You say that He is neutral, because good and bad did not already exist when He did so.

I forgotten to imply when He is neutral.So stop bringing this part up. i had admitted that i made an error in this part.

You're right. Mine had only one assumed correlation. If we look at yours, we see...

I'll take it as sarcasm. I presented 5 assumption while you presented 1. it doesn't really matter though, because i'm not talking about the numbers of assumptions that i and you made. i'm talking about the apparent link between the two, which i failed to see.

I'll assume you misread my argument, so i'll just throw in more explanation.

I said the following

he HAD to abide to it, because if not, he would not be respected by his creation and there would be no prophets and the bible ( if you assume that He exist ). because there IS prophets and the bible ( again, assuming his existence ), it follows that God was following his own rules.

This is based on what i was taught that the core of any religion is trust in a deity. I believe that in order for that trust to happen, there MUST be a source of it. My opinion is that the source of it is that God makes rules in which He wants us to abide to. assuming that we see God as a human, there would be a lot of suspicion and blockage, as we would assume that God would just back-step over the rules and oppress us using the rules. in short, corrupting the rules. since this suspicion and blockage doesn't occur, and this occurs for a very long time ( so God can't hide his own corruption), so God must had abide to his own rules. otherwise, that religious trust and with it, the prophets and the Bible would had not exist or would had gone a long time ago. now i know that there might be more variables in this matter, so i may had some fault in this, in that case feel free to add more variables if you think there is more

[quote]Sorry, I meant "our design", as in, the design with which we were created, not the design that we, ourselves, specified. As you say it was His doing. It is therefore still His responsibility and His fault.[/quote]\r\n\r\nThe world we live on, assuming God's existence, is His creation. So it follows that God IS responsible for what he created. that is true, but it was never a mistake or a fault in God's part. assuming he created all moral values we known to use and he also use those ( depicted in the bible ) in relations to us, then He was never at fault. there are numerous sides in this point and the only known side in this matter that defies the values He created are, well humans (demons and devils can also be added, but i don't believe they really exist). so it was a mistake on parts of the defiant humans, and i meant parts not all (in case you are wondering i'm not referring to either you or anyone in this thread). \r\n\r\n[quote]What exactly are you trying to prove here?[/quote]\r\n\r\nI am trying to prove that Moral values of good and bad cannot be escaped by God once it was created, so he lost his neutrality. prior to it's creation however, He WAS obviously neutral, as there is nothing to judge him with. And to prove that the ones creating evil isn't bad. \r\n\r\nLet me ask you this. Is the creators of the atomic bomb can be called "killers or murderers" because they kill a hell of a lot of people? does creating gunpowder equals guns that kill people? Would you be a rapist if you "created" (give birth) to a future rapist? \r\n\r\ni know that they don't know what would happen in the future but God knows, which is the greatest difference between both. But even if He knew the consequence of creating a moral system, he did it anyway, persisting into today. Since if can't be an "accident" (Having power to know the future), it was not a grievous error, rather it was intended from the start. And if it was intended, it is most plausible that He created it to benefit Himself. However, we don't know in what way it benefits Him much more so than it's drawbacks so much it persist until today. However He won't(or can't) misuse His power to break His own rules. that's why i Believe he wasn't at fault.\r\n\r\nI'll admit, i made a mistake in this part\r\n[quote]You say that He is neutral, because good and bad did not already exist when He did so.[/quote]\r\nI forgotten to imply when He is neutral.So stop bringing this part up. i had admitted that i made an error in this part.\r\n\r\n[quote]You're right. Mine had only one assumed correlation. If we look at yours, we see...[/quote]\r\n\r\nI'll take it as sarcasm. I presented 5 assumption while you presented 1. it doesn't really matter though, because i'm not talking about the numbers of assumptions that i and you made. i'm talking about the apparent link between the two, which i failed to see.\r\n\r\nI'll assume you misread my argument, so i'll just throw in more explanation.\r\n\r\nI said the following\r\n[quote]he HAD to abide to it, because if not, he would not be respected by his creation and there would be no prophets and the bible ( if you assume that He exist ). because there IS prophets and the bible ( again, assuming his existence ), it follows that God was following his own rules.[/quote]\r\n\r\nThis is based on what i was taught that the core of any religion is trust in a deity. I believe that in order for that trust to happen, there MUST be a source of it. My opinion is that the source of it is that God makes rules in which He wants us to abide to. assuming that we see God as a human, there would be a lot of suspicion and blockage, as we would assume that God would just back-step over the rules and oppress us using the rules. in short, corrupting the rules. since this suspicion and blockage doesn't occur, and this occurs for a very long time ( so God can't hide his own corruption), so God must had abide to his own rules. otherwise, that religious trust and with it, the prophets and the Bible would had not exist or would had gone a long time ago. now i know that there might be more variables in this matter, so i may had some fault in this, in that case feel free to add more variables if you think there is more

offline

Kennethhartanto

241 posts

Constable

Posted April 28, '14 12:54pm UTC

sorry, i forgotten something. i have read the Church of Satan's rules and ideals and i still don't understand how does it relate to atheist. if i recall, atheist are not hedonistic, destroy other people that bothers them, regard stupidity as a "sin" or decry herd conformity.

offline

HahiHa

8,255 posts

Regent

Posted April 28, '14 3:01pm UTC

if i recall, atheist are not hedonistic, destroy other people that bothers them, regard stupidity as a "sin" or decry herd conformity.

"Atheists" are not a group of people with similar morals like religions. Those things don't directly relate to atheism. Atheists can be hedonistic or not; and considering those that hold no belief in an afterlife, I would expect hedonism to be more frequent, not less.

offline

09philj

2,825 posts

Jester

Posted April 28, '14 3:35pm UTC

i still don't understand how does it relate to atheist

The definition of atheism is to not believe in god, or any higher power. LaVeyan Satanism is a set of ideals that is based on the assertion that there is no God and that the nature of man is hedonistic. LaVeyan Satanists are atheists, but atheists are not Satanists.

offline

FishPreferred

3,171 posts

Duke

Posted April 28, '14 6:01pm UTC

He created are, well humans (demons and devils can also be added, but i don't believe they really exist). so it was a mistake on parts of the defiant humans, and i meant parts not all [...]

A mistake those humans were programmed to make. A mistake that can only have been intended by their creator. A mistake that He could prevent if He wanted to. Now do you see what I'm getting at?

I am trying to prove that Moral values of good and bad cannot be escaped by God once it was created, so he lost his neutrality. prior to it's creation however, He WAS obviously neutral, as there is nothing to judge him with.

Sure, but that has no bearing upon the situation.

i know that they don't know what would happen in the future but God knows, which is the greatest difference between both. But even if He knew the consequence of creating a moral system, he did it anyway, persisting into today. Since if can't be an "accident" (Having power to know the future), it was not a grievous error, rather it was intended from the start. And if it was intended, it is most plausible that He created it to benefit Himself. However, we don't know in what way it benefits Him much more so than it's drawbacks so much it persist until today. However He won't(or can't) misuse His power to break His own rules. that's why i Believe he wasn't at fault.

(I'm going to ignore the analogy, because even you admit that it isn't applicable)

As I stated earlier, it has to be one or the other. As you say it cannot have been a mistake on His part, that still leaves Him to blame, because He intentionally created evil for His own gain.

since this suspicion and blockage doesn't occur, and this occurs for a very long time ( so God can't hide his own corruption), [...]

This conclusion is unclear. Corruption can't be hidden...because we don't see it?

[...] so God must had abide to his own rules. otherwise, that religious trust and with it, the prophets and the Bible would had not exist or would had gone a long time ago.

This is assuming that we have a one cause/one result scenario. If I understand you correctly, what you are saying is this:

If God follows His own rules, people will trust Him.
People trust Him.
Therefore, God follows His own rules.

That is a fallacy of undistributed middle.

[quote]He created are, well humans (demons and devils can also be added, but i don't believe they really exist). so it was a mistake on parts of the defiant humans, and i meant parts not all [...][/quote]\r\n\r\nA mistake those humans were programmed to make. A mistake that can only have been intended by their creator. A mistake that He could prevent if He wanted to. Now do you see what I'm getting at?\r\n\r\n[quote]I am trying to prove that Moral values of good and bad cannot be escaped by God once it was created, so he lost his neutrality. prior to it's creation however, He WAS obviously neutral, as there is nothing to judge him with.[/quote]\r\n\r\nSure, but that has no bearing upon the situation.\r\n\r\n[quote]i know that they don't know what would happen in the future but God knows, which is the greatest difference between both. But even if He knew the consequence of creating a moral system, he did it anyway, persisting into today. Since if can't be an "accident" (Having power to know the future), it was not a grievous error, rather it was intended from the start. And if it was intended, it is most plausible that He created it to benefit Himself. However, we don't know in what way it benefits Him much more so than it's drawbacks so much it persist until today. However He won't(or can't) misuse His power to break His own rules. that's why i Believe he wasn't at fault.[/quote]\r\n\r\n(I'm going to ignore the analogy, because even you admit that it isn't applicable)\r\n\r\nAs I stated earlier, it has to be one or the other. As you say it cannot have been a mistake on His part, that [i]still[/i] leaves Him to blame, because He intentionally created evil for His own gain.\r\n\r\n[quote]since this suspicion and blockage doesn't occur, and this occurs for a very long time ( so God can't hide his own corruption), [...][/quote]\r\n\r\nThis conclusion is unclear. Corruption can't be hidden...because we don't see it?\r\n\r\n[quote][...] so God must had abide to his own rules. otherwise, that religious trust and with it, the prophets and the Bible would had not exist or would had gone a long time ago.[/quote]\r\n\r\nThis is assuming that we have a one cause/one result scenario. If I understand you correctly, what you are saying is this:\r\n\r\nIf God follows His own rules, people will trust Him.\r\nPeople trust Him.\r\nTherefore, God follows His own rules.\r\n\r\nThat is a fallacy of undistributed middle.

offline

09philj

2,825 posts

Jester

Posted April 29, '14 2:48pm UTC

If God follows His own rules, people will trust Him.
People trust Him.
Therefore, God follows His own rules.

That is a fallacy of undistributed middle.

If God follows His rules, he will be trusted.
It is not agreed whether God follows His rules.
Followers of God trust God.
Therefore, followers of God believe God follows his rules.

offline

MageGrayWolf

9,462 posts

Farmer

Posted April 29, '14 5:18pm UTC

This is based on what i was taught that the core of any religion is trust in a deity.

Not necessarily, there are religions without deities. Some seem to deploy the use of fear and submission to a deity creating a form of abusive relationship not unlike that of a battered wife.

so God must had abide to his own rules. otherwise, that religious trust and with it, the prophets and the Bible would had not exist or would had gone a long time ago.

Or those holding the belief continually make excuses and use special pleading for the corrupt behavior.

offline

Kennethhartanto

241 posts

Constable

Posted April 30, '14 3:03pm UTC

A mistake those humans were programmed to make. A mistake that can only have been intended by their creator. A mistake that He could prevent if He wanted to. Now do you see what I'm getting at?

I could see what you are getting at. Those "defiant" humans were programmed to do evil. But i believe this part is wrong, as we humans have a will on our own. if we don't, there would be no atheist in this world. So they can choose to do evil, but they done it anyway. which is why it is still the defiant humans fault, not God, as God didn't done any evil. He just created it, and that's it. true He can't prevent it, but He don't, so in this case i believe there is a very good reason to do so ( wait, it is neither "good" or "bad", since before the creation, there is nothing to judge him with). All i need to do to negate your argument is negating the first sentence, so i don't need to negate the 2nd and 3rd sentence.

As I stated earlier, it has to be one or the other. As you say it cannot have been a mistake on His part, that still leaves Him to blame, because He intentionally created evil for His own gain.

Why do you insist on blaming anyone for the creation of evil anyway? Why not think the creation of evil as beneficial, rather than detrimental to us? Maybe that's the reason it was created anyways, maybe even that is what it what God assume as his own gain.

This conclusion is unclear. Corruption can't be hidden...because we don't see it?

Or it never happened. We can't just miss a corruption for a very long time even if it was made by God, because there will be evidence and a very big consequence if it does happened.

That is a fallacy of undistributed middle.

please explain what do you meant by this.

If God follows His rules, he will be trusted.
It is not agreed whether God follows His rules.
Followers of God trust God.
Therefore, followers of God believe God follows his rules.

Exactly what i'm trying to say.

Not necessarily, there are religions without deities. Some seem to deploy the use of fear and submission to a deity creating a form of abusive relationship not unlike that of a battered wife.

Like what? Confucianism? that isn't even a religion, it is a belief system.

Or those holding the belief continually make excuses and use special pleading for the corrupt behavior.

If it does exist (the corruption), then i don't think every believer is just going to keep their mouth shut. There WILL be voices demanding God's responsibility for His actions. Alas, there aren't any for the whole 2000 ( or 1900?) years of Christianity, which is plenty of time for someone to spot a mistake or corruption on God's side.

[quote]A mistake those humans were programmed to make. A mistake that can only have been intended by their creator. A mistake that He could prevent if He wanted to. Now do you see what I'm getting at?[/quote]\r\n\r\nI could see what you are getting at. Those "defiant" humans were programmed to do evil. But i believe this part is wrong, as we humans have a will on our own. if we don't, there would be no atheist in this world. So they can choose to do evil, but they done it anyway. which is why it is still the defiant humans fault, not God, as God didn't done any evil. He just created it, and that's it. true He can't prevent it, but He don't, so in this case i believe there is a very good reason to do so ( wait, it is neither "good" or "bad", since before the creation, there is nothing to judge him with). All i need to do to negate your argument is negating the first sentence, so i don't need to negate the 2nd and 3rd sentence.\r\n\r\n[quote]As I stated earlier, it has to be one or the other. As you say it cannot have been a mistake on His part, that still leaves Him to blame, because He intentionally created evil for His own gain.[/quote]\r\n\r\nWhy do you insist on blaming anyone for the creation of evil anyway? Why not think the creation of evil as beneficial, rather than detrimental to us? Maybe that's the reason it was created anyways, maybe even that is what it what God assume as his own gain.\r\n\r\n[quote]This conclusion is unclear. Corruption can't be hidden...because we don't see it?[/quote]\r\n\r\nOr it never happened. We can't just miss a corruption for a very long time even if it was made by God, because there will be evidence and a very big consequence if it does happened.\r\n\r\n[quote]That is a fallacy of undistributed middle.[/quote]\r\n\r\nplease explain what do you meant by this.\r\n\r\n[quote]If God follows His rules, he will be trusted.\r\nIt is not agreed whether God follows His rules.\r\nFollowers of God trust God.\r\nTherefore, followers of God believe God follows his rules.[/quote]\r\n\r\nExactly what i'm trying to say.\r\n\r\n[quote]Not necessarily, there are religions without deities. Some seem to deploy the use of fear and submission to a deity creating a form of abusive relationship not unlike that of a battered wife. [/quote]\r\n\r\nLike what? Confucianism? that isn't even a religion, it is a belief system.\r\n\r\n[quote]Or those holding the belief continually make excuses and use special pleading for the corrupt behavior.[/quote]\r\n\r\nIf it does exist (the corruption), then i don't think every believer is just going to keep their mouth shut. There WILL be voices demanding God's responsibility for His actions. Alas, there aren't any for the whole 2000 ( or 1900?) years of Christianity, which is plenty of time for someone to spot a mistake or corruption on God's side.

offline

FishPreferred

3,171 posts

Duke

Posted April 30, '14 8:55pm UTC

I could see what you are getting at. Those "defiant" humans were programmed to do evil. But i believe this part is wrong, as we humans have a will on our own. if we don't, there would be no atheist in this world. So they can choose to do evil, but they done it anyway.

It isn't about will; it's about necessity. Will has no involvement in the matter because humans were doomed by design to commit wrongs. In a world engineered by a supreme all-knowing entity, all choices are forced. We are not to blame if He chooses to force that particular choice upon us.

Why do you insist on blaming anyone for the creation of evil anyway? Why not think the creation of evil as beneficial, rather than detrimental to us? Maybe that's the reason it was created anyways, maybe even that is what it what God assume as his own gain.

You would need to redefine evil, and the religious authorities would have a great deal of explaining to do. The old "do evil and you will be punished for all eternity" spiel makes no sense, otherwise.

Or it never happened. We can't just miss a corruption for a very long time even if it was made by God, because there will be evidence and a very big consequence if it does happened.

Where do you get this idea? It looks like you're speaking from faith alone, and many biblical stories do depict God as behaving in a flagrant and highly dubious manner.

please explain what do you meant by this.

If A is true, B is true
B is true
Therefore, A is true

That's what I mean. Your conclusion rests on the assumption that there is only one possible reason for the outcome. Id est, that B is only true where A is true, rather than when C, D, E, or F are true. This is the same in 09philj's translation.

Like what? Confucianism? that isn't even a religion, it is a belief system.

Some Confucianists would disagree with you there. There's also ancestor worship (of various kinds) and religions based on mundane things, such as nature spirits.

If it does exist (the corruption), then i don't think every believer is just going to keep their mouth shut.

This is not about everyone intentionally hushing up any signs of corruption and pretending it doesn't exist. It's about self-deception: People want to believe that God - particularly whichever one they worship - is benevolent. They willfully ignore the facts to save themselves from facing them.

There WILL be voices demanding God's responsibility for His actions. Alas, there aren't any for the whole 2000 ( or 1900?) years of Christianity, [...]

There are, actually. In fact, if you look carefully, you might be able to see one very close by.

[quote]I could see what you are getting at. Those "defiant" humans were programmed to do evil. But i believe this part is wrong, as we humans have a will on our own. if we don't, there would be no atheist in this world. So they can choose to do evil, but they done it anyway.[/quote]\r\n\r\nIt isn't about will; it's about necessity. Will has no involvement in the matter because humans were doomed by design to commit wrongs. In a world engineered by a supreme all-knowing entity, all choices are forced. We are not to blame if He chooses to force that particular choice upon us.\r\n\r\n[quote]Why do you insist on blaming anyone for the creation of evil anyway? Why not think the creation of evil as beneficial, rather than detrimental to us? Maybe that's the reason it was created anyways, maybe even that is what it what God assume as his own gain.[/quote]\r\n\r\nYou would need to redefine evil, and the religious authorities would have a great deal of explaining to do. The old "do evil and you will be punished for all eternity" spiel makes no sense, otherwise.\r\n\r\n[quote]Or it never happened. We can't just miss a corruption for a very long time even if it was made by God, because there will be evidence and a very big consequence if it does happened.[/quote]\r\n\r\nWhere do you get this idea? It looks like you're speaking from faith alone, and many biblical stories do depict God as behaving in a flagrant and highly dubious manner.\r\n\r\n[quote]please explain what do you meant by this.[/quote]\r\n\r\nIf A is true, B is true\r\nB is true\r\nTherefore, A is true\r\n\r\nThat's what I mean. Your conclusion rests on the assumption that there is only one possible reason for the outcome. Id est, that B is [i]only[/i] true where A is true, rather than when C, D, E, or F are true. This is the same in 09philj's translation.\r\n\r\n[quote]Like what? Confucianism? that isn't even a religion, it is a belief system.[/quote]\r\n\r\nSome Confucianists would disagree with you there. There's also ancestor worship (of various kinds) and religions based on mundane things, such as nature spirits.\r\n\r\n[quote]If it does exist (the corruption), then i don't think every believer is just going to keep their mouth shut. [/quote]\r\n\r\nThis is not about everyone intentionally hushing up any signs of corruption and [i]pretending[/i] it doesn't exist. It's about self-deception: People [i]want[/i] to believe that God - particularly whichever one they worship - is benevolent. They willfully ignore the facts to save themselves from facing them.\r\n\r\n[quote]There WILL be voices demanding God's responsibility for His actions. Alas, there aren't any for the whole 2000 ( or 1900?) years of Christianity, [...][/quote]\r\n\r\nThere are, actually. In fact, if you look carefully, you might be able to see one very close by.

offline

Kennethhartanto

241 posts

Constable

Posted May 2, '14 9:56am UTC

It isn't about will; it's about necessity. Will has no involvement in the matter because humans were doomed by design to commit wrongs. In a world engineered by a supreme all-knowing entity, all choices are forced. We are not to blame if He chooses to force that particular choice upon us.

Makes sense to me, but what if God only created the world, it's inhabitants and it's rules and then proceed to be only an observer? What if He only designed the first aspects of the world, not ALL aspects of the world? What if His role in this world is akin to a scientist creating a culture of bacteria and then leaving it after giving it enough supplies to multiply indefinitely and evolve on it's own? That would clear all blame on God and put the blame on us if we chose to do what He tells us not to do, because it is our choice not His to begin with. For instance, did God designed you to be an atheist? it would be very , very counterproductive if He decided to create an atheist in this world. that's why i believe even though God created us and our morality, He still leave us with free will to do whatever we wanted, so it(bad morality) can still be blamed on the persons that actually do the action

You would need to redefine evil, and the religious authorities would have a great deal of explaining to do. The old "do evil and you will be punished for all eternity" spiel makes no sense, otherwise.

You don't need to redefine "evil" if this was true, If you assume ( like i do ) that evil isn't meant to be done by humans because it ( maybe?) was created in the first place to act as an antonym to anything good. In my opinion, Evil serves as only as a way to differentiate good, the latter which God wants us to do. So in a way i think it is a "beneficial" to have bad morality, for bad morality serves as a comparison so we can do good things easier and remember it. that's what i think was what's in it for God if he created "bad" morals.

Where do you get this idea?

i get it from the bible and World history books, both of which never accounted any evidence if God did a sort of corruption.

It looks like you're speaking from faith alone, and many biblical stories do depict God as behaving in a flagrant and highly dubious manner.

I admit, the bible leaves no room for a second view on things. it is in some way, a fundamentalist book. Still that's my only source for any proofs on god's any kind of corruption. so what choice do i have? i am forced to license the bible in the search of evidence of any corruption on the traditional Christian God, because it is the only source.

That's what I mean. Your conclusion rests on the assumption that there is only one possible reason for the outcome. Id est, that B is only true where A is true, rather than when C, D, E, or F are true. This is the same in 09philj's translation.

hmmm..... so regular mathematical logic don't work in this one heh? ok, i admit my mistake in this part. I'm sorry, i forgot to emphasize that I had said in the final parts of my last 3 comment, in which i said that i know that there may be more variables added to the equation for it to be true. try reading my comments much more clearly next time. oh, and i'll show it to you if you insist on asking which part. BTW, i admit my mistake , so don't bring this case ever again

Some Confucianists would disagree with you there. There's also ancestor worship (of various kinds) and religions based on mundane things, such as nature spirits.

ok then, Confucianist are religious. ancestor worship and nature spirit can be assumed as a kind of "deity", so you're right, confucianism is a religion

This is not about everyone intentionally hushing up any signs of corruption and pretending it doesn't exist. It's about self-deception: People want to believe that God - particularly whichever one they worship - is benevolent. They willfully ignore the facts to save themselves from facing them.

Not exactly, if you look at polytheism religions, there are a load of examples of God they worship to NOT do bad things to them ( a form of corruption in my opinion, since the worshiped God literally blackmailed the worshiper.)

There are, actually. In fact, if you look carefully, you might be able to see one very close by.

Like you? No, I'm not looking for atheist persons demanding God's responsibility IF He did some corruptions. I'm looking for religious people/believers that had evidence of God's corruption and outspokenly ask for His responsibility. notice in the start of my argument, in which i said

i don't think every believer is just going to keep their mouth shut

I definitely created a range for this problem, and you go outside it. which is basically the same as going to the walls of my argument and doomed to blast right through it

[quote]It isn't about will; it's about necessity. Will has no involvement in the matter because humans were doomed by design to commit wrongs. In a world engineered by a supreme all-knowing entity, all choices are forced. We are not to blame if He chooses to force that particular choice upon us.[/quote]\r\n\r\nMakes sense to me, but what if God only created the world, it's inhabitants and it's rules and then proceed to be only an observer? What if He only designed the first aspects of the world, not ALL aspects of the world? What if His role in this world is akin to a scientist creating a culture of bacteria and then leaving it after giving it enough supplies to multiply indefinitely and evolve on it's own? That would clear all blame on God and put the blame  on us if we chose to do what He tells us not to do, because it is our choice not His to begin with. For instance, did God designed you to be an atheist? it would be very , very counterproductive if He decided to create an atheist in this world. that's why i believe even though God created us and our morality, He still leave us with free will to do whatever we wanted, so it(bad morality) can still be blamed on the persons that actually do the action\r\n\r\n[quote]You would need to redefine evil, and the religious authorities would have a great deal of explaining to do. The old "do evil and you will be punished for all eternity" spiel makes no sense, otherwise.[/quote]\r\n\r\nYou don't need to redefine "evil" if this was true, If you assume ( like i do ) that evil isn't meant to be done by humans because it ( maybe?) was created in the first place to act as an antonym to anything good. In my opinion, Evil serves as only as a way to differentiate good, the latter which God wants us to do. So in a way i think it is a "beneficial" to have bad morality, for bad morality serves as a comparison so we can do good things easier and remember it. that's what i think was what's in it for God if he created "bad" morals.\r\n\r\n[quote]Where do you get this idea?[/quote]\r\n\r\ni get it from the bible and World history books, both of which never accounted any evidence if God did a sort of corruption.\r\n\r\n[quote]It looks like you're speaking from faith alone, and many biblical stories do depict God as behaving in a flagrant and highly dubious manner.[/quote]\r\n\r\nI admit, the bible leaves no room for a second view on things. it is in some way, a fundamentalist book. Still that's my only source for any proofs on god's any kind of corruption. so what choice do i have? i am forced to license the bible in the search of evidence of any corruption on the traditional Christian God, because it is the only source.\r\n\r\n[quote]That's what I mean. Your conclusion rests on the assumption that there is only one possible reason for the outcome. Id est, that B is only true where A is true, rather than when C, D, E, or F are true. This is the same in 09philj's translation.[/quote]\r\n\r\nhmmm..... so regular mathematical logic don't work in this one heh? ok, i admit my mistake in this part. I'm sorry, i forgot to emphasize that I had said in the final parts of my last 3 comment, in which i said that i know that there may be more variables added to the equation for it to be true. try reading my comments much more clearly next time. oh, and i'll show it to you if you insist on asking which part. BTW, i admit my mistake , so don't bring this case ever again\r\n\r\n[quote]Some Confucianists would disagree with you there. There's also ancestor worship (of various kinds) and religions based on mundane things, such as nature spirits.[/quote]\r\n\r\nok then, Confucianist are religious. ancestor worship and nature spirit can be assumed as a kind of "deity", so you're right, confucianism is a religion\r\n\r\n[quote]This is not about everyone intentionally hushing up any signs of corruption and pretending it doesn't exist. It's about self-deception: People want to believe that God - particularly whichever one they worship - is benevolent. They willfully ignore the facts to save themselves from facing them.[/quote]\r\n\r\nNot exactly, if you look at polytheism religions, there are a load of examples of God they worship to NOT do bad things to them ( a form of corruption in my opinion, since the worshiped God literally blackmailed the worshiper.)\r\n\r\n[quote]There are, actually. In fact, if you look carefully, you might be able to see one very close by.[/quote]\r\n\r\nLike you? No, I'm not looking for atheist persons demanding God's responsibility IF He did some corruptions. I'm looking for religious people/believers that had evidence of God's corruption and outspokenly ask for His responsibility. notice in the start of my argument, in which i said \r\n\r\n[quote]i don't think every [b] believer [/b] is just going to keep their mouth shut[/quote]\r\n\r\nI definitely created a range for this problem, and you go outside it. which is basically the same as going to the walls of my argument and doomed to blast right through it

offline

Kennethhartanto

241 posts

Constable

Posted May 2, '14 10:03am UTC

One second, i kept forgetting to ask you people. How do you people think about the correlation about Atheist and basic morality? i read the 09philj comment and i got an idea that you atheist mostly are devoid of morality, because you guys assume that "hedonistic is man's nature", which is the right kind of arguments for most criminals and drug users to justify what they are doing. again, sorry for the double post

offline

HahiHa

8,255 posts

Regent

Posted May 2, '14 10:21am UTC

One second, i kept forgetting to ask you people. How do you people think about the correlation about Atheist and basic morality? i read the 09philj comment and i got an idea that you atheist mostly are devoid of morality, because you guys assume that "hedonistic is man's nature", which is the right kind of arguments for most criminals and drug users to justify what they are doing. again, sorry for the double post

Hold on. If you reread 09philjs post, you will see he was speaking about LaVeyan satanism, who are atheists; but not all atheists are LaVeyan. Their ideas are interesting but I personally consider too much hedonism, mixed with a cult based on ones ego, to be unhealthy to the society. There's nothing wrong with hedonism per se, though; just don't forget all the rest.

While it is true that there is no morality specific to atheists, it is a false assumption to say that atheists are devoid of morals. Because ultimately morals come from society, and atheists are part of our society. We have morals as well, they just differ slightly from most religious morals.

Lastly, I really doubt that "because it's fun!!!" is the actual motivation behind most criminals and drug dealers. There's a lot more psychological and sociological stuff behind that; linking hedonism directly with criminality is baseless. That's usually the argument you would expect from an elder conservative religious person.

[quote]One second, i kept forgetting to ask you people. How do you people think about the correlation about Atheist and basic morality? i read the 09philj comment and i got an idea that you atheist mostly are devoid of morality, because you guys assume that "hedonistic is man's nature", which is the right kind of arguments for most criminals and drug users to justify what they are doing. again, sorry for the double post[/quote]\r\nHold on. If you reread 09philjs post, you will see he was speaking about LaVeyan satanism, who are atheists; but not all atheists are LaVeyan. Their ideas are interesting but I personally consider too much hedonism, mixed with a cult based on ones ego, to be unhealthy to the society. There's nothing wrong with hedonism per se, though; just don't forget all the rest.\r\n\r\nWhile it is true that there is no morality specific to atheists, it is a false assumption to say that atheists are devoid of morals. Because ultimately morals come from society, and atheists are part of our society. We have morals as well, they just differ slightly from most religious morals. \r\n\r\nLastly, I really doubt that "because it's fun!!!" is the actual motivation behind most criminals and drug dealers. There's a lot more psychological and sociological stuff behind that; linking hedonism directly with criminality is baseless. That's usually the argument you would expect from an elder conservative religious person.

offline

Kennethhartanto

241 posts

Constable

Posted May 2, '14 11:18am UTC

ok then, what is YOUR atheism morality? there must be a moral similarity between different atheist, something to tie them all together. and what do you mean with differ slightly?

offline

HahiHa

8,255 posts

Regent

Posted May 2, '14 11:38am UTC

there must be a moral similarity between different atheist, something to tie them all together.

There is, as mentioned: society. Which should also cover your first question. You could then try to go more indepth and ask, what makes social morals? This certainly deserves its own thread, but for a short answer I like to claim it is empathy that is the base to most morals; empathy which arose when we became individuals in a social community.

and what do you mean with differ slightly?

Religious morals are heavily based on society morals, thus the bulk of it is likely similar (theft and murder is bad, for example). The only differences are the morals specific to a religion, and the consequences of not following it (committing a sin supposedly also has a spiritual impact, while a crime simply results in a sentence).

offline

Kasic

5,552 posts

Jester

Posted May 3, '14 3:32am UTC Edited May 3, '14 3:35am UTC by Kasic

what is YOUR atheism morality?

Mine personally are based on what I think is best for everyone in terms of freedom, happiness, safety, and privacy. I try to separate out culture as much as possible (I'm probably still influenced by how I was raised to some extent). In other words, I try to base my morality on rationality, consideration, and effect. I do think there's a degree of subjectivity, and that it's overzealous to try and separate everything into good and evil.

I do not see a need for a god to dictate morals, and even if I did believe in a god, there is no way I would simply accept whatever it said is right without thinking about it for myself.

How do you people think about the correlation about Atheist and basic morality?

From a psychological standpoint, I would assume atheists have a more developed sense of morality on average. This isn't to say an atheist cannot get their morals from some other kind of ideology (political or otherwise religious) but that your average atheist is going to have thought more about what is right and wrong and why, as opposed to accepting a certain view because it was dictated by a book. If you reject a certain moral viewpoint, especially if it was the one you were raised with, you must necessarily think about what your morals then are.

because you guys assume that "hedonistic is man's nature",

There's a difference between recognizing what is and deciding how that is to be treated. For example, rape. I do not think rape is a social construct - a great many animals rape others of their species. Does that somehow justify it? Absolutely not.

We have in our natures a desire to consume and want more than we need. That doesn't justify eating only cake for the rest of your life, getting diabetes, and then saying it's natural to act that way.

and it's rules and then proceed to be only an observer?

Then he would have no right to punish people for not believing he exists if he refuses to show himself.

[quote]what is YOUR atheism morality? [/quote]

Mine personally are based on what I think is best for everyone in terms of freedom, happiness, safety, and privacy. I try to separate out culture as much as possible (I'm probably still influenced by how I was raised to some extent). In other words, I try to base my morality on rationality, consideration, and effect. I do think there's a degree of subjectivity, and that it's overzealous to try and separate everything into good and evil.

I do not see a need for a god to dictate morals, and even if I did believe in a god, there is no way I would simply accept whatever it said is right without thinking about it for myself.

[quote] How do you people think about the correlation about Atheist and basic morality? [/quote]

From a psychological standpoint, I would assume atheists have a more developed sense of morality on average. This isn't to say an atheist cannot get their morals from some other kind of ideology (political or otherwise religious) but that your average atheist is going to have thought more about what is right and wrong and [i]why[/i], as opposed to accepting a certain view because it was dictated by a book. If you reject a certain moral viewpoint, especially if it was the one you were raised with, you must necessarily think about what your morals then are.

[quote]because you guys assume that "hedonistic is man's nature",[/quote]

There's a difference between recognizing what is and deciding how that is to be treated. For example, rape. I do not think rape is a social construct - a great many animals rape others of their species. Does that somehow justify it? Absolutely not.

We have in our natures a desire to consume and want more than we need. That doesn't justify eating only cake for the rest of your life, getting diabetes, and then saying it's natural to act that way.

[quote]and it's rules and then proceed to be only an observer? [/quote]

Then he would have no right to punish people for not believing he exists if he refuses to show himself.

Categories

Quests

Community

Forums → WEPR → Humanity...