User Tag List

Page 1 of 38 1234511 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 12 of 446

Thread: The God of Love

  1. #1
    Lobotomized Angry Citizen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    11,107
    Threads
    181
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    10
    Mentioned
    42 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    The God of Love

    A disturbing trend has been evidenced of late, in the Volconvo community and in well-publicized debate. This trend is the idea that God is morality, and that without God, atheists have no moral center. Allow me to debunk this ghastly assertion once and for all by presenting you this God of Love in all His glory.

    Humans can be cruel to other humans: This is a fact. God does nothing to stop this. In the thousands upon thousands of years humanity has been on this Earth, not once has God seen fit to end murder, rape, persecution, dictatorial rule, hate, malcontent, abuse, neglect, and any other foul action capable of humans. But let us ignore this. Though this is not in the Bible, God apparently gave humans free will, and we may act as we please. Moving on.

    God can be cruel to humans: This is noted in the mythologies of the great monotheistic religions. The Old Testament alone is riddled with plagues, condemnations, sacrifice of sons, mass genocide, condoned rape, slavery, and my all time favorite: the Book of Job, wherein God decides he wants to utterly annihilate everything good in Job's life, all to test just how blindly devoted Job is. What does this ultimately condone? The idea that dictatorial rule by some sick, twisted, maniacal authority figure is not only acceptable, but praiseworthy -- remember, we still have to worship this guy ostensibly.

    Nature can be cruel to humans: One need only note things like the 1994 Sudan famine, the 2004 tsunami, the earthquake in Haiti, or the black death in the 14th century to see how nature can savagely destroy humans in a seemingly indiscriminate pattern. Unless you ascribe to the notion that those who sin are going to be punished, where's the pattern? I see no suspension of the natural forces to accommodate, say, an innocent child who has never done anything wrong in his or her life. As mythology tells us, nature was created by God, and he is therefore the source of this cruelty.

    If God is the source of morality, why is it so corrupted and savage? If God is the source of morality, why is man capable of such superiority to the murdering psychopathic behavior we see in the 'holy books'? No, I contend that if God really does exist, then he is no more infallible than the rest of humanity. He is beneath the majority of our personal morals, plucked from the air though they be. Indeed, his moralities seem plucked from the same air that ours was. Now gee, doesn't that sound suspicious? Almost as though the Bible and other works of 'faith' are just as lacking in absolute morality as we heathen atheists are.

    I implore everyone to challenge this disgusting stereotype that atheists cannot have authority in morality. I encourage everyone to denounce the monopoly on morals that the religious are granted. We don't need evolution to explain our choice in morality. We need only our hearts and minds to know what is right for mankind -- not an ambiguous, hypocritical, terrifyingly sadistic book of lies, and not a scientific theory that speaks nothing on the nature of morality.

    A man said to the universe:
    "Sir, I exist!"
    "However," replied the universe,
    "The fact has not created in me
    A sense of obligation."


    -- Stephen Crane

  2. #2
    Volcanic Erupter
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    3,900
    Threads
    278
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    7
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    It is false that atheists don't have morals.

    However, there are good things which have come out of religion. Take the priests who enlighten entire communities stricken by poverty. Of course, you have to realize the horrible things that have come from religion, and they certainly outnumber the good.

    "The place of the worst barbarism is that modern forest that makes use of us, this forest of chimneys and bayonets, machines and weapons, of strange inanimate beasts that feed on human flesh"

  3. #3
    Sapere Aude Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    26,854
    Threads
    2217
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    289
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Being a fan of Sam Harris I just downloaded and will soon be reading "The Moral Landscape", in which he argues that science can provide the groundwork for a purely secular morality.

    I'll comment more on that once I've seen what he has to say.



    The Forum Rules

    Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.
    [John F. Kennedy]
    The principal value of debate lies in the development of logical thought processes, and the ability to articulate your positions publicly.
    [Senator Dick Clark of Iowa]
    The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to the presence of those who think they've found it.
    [Terry Pratchett]

  4. #4
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    everywhere
    Posts
    5,086
    Threads
    103
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Is this supposed to be an argument about god, religion, or morality?

    For ' morality ' to have any substance it must be enforced...or it's a lion with no teeth or claws...so...show me...

    that the child suffering from hunger in Asia...and the woman being raped on the Streets of NY:

    1. deserved it ( it is/was justified )
    2. will see the source of their damage be punished
    3. will be compensated for said damage

    if you cannot show me any of these things...then you have not proven morality even exists outside of an ' opinion ' based upon majority rule according to the structure of their social and cultural surroundings...

    having no substance beyond that.

    So...to answer your dilemma...neither atheists nor theists have any morality...none...because morality can be made to become anything we desire...at any time we desire it...the majority just rules upon agreement...

    that however doesn't make one person's judgment any better or worse than any other...it just means that the majority would be better able to enforce their will over the minority...

    unless you can show ' justice '...morality is..." in the eye of the beholder".

    There is no evidence at all...that ' morality exists '...anymore than there is evidence that god exists...

    without ' justice ' morality is just words with no substance.

    ..............

    Joe thinks it's better to keep criminals alive...they might reform...we might accidentally kill an innocent party

    Pete thinks that we should kill criminals...that way they cannot commit more crimes...create more victims...one innocent death is better than the creation of 1000 new victims

    both think they have the best moral position...when, in fact, they have an opinion... and it is the person who has the most like-thinking people behind them who gets to rule their opinion over the opinions of others.


  5. #5
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    everywhere
    Posts
    5,086
    Threads
    103
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Joe loves his dog...never smacks it...is offended by the very notion

    Pete loves his dog...smacks it but only whenever the dog does something wrong

    Frank loves his dog but beats it regularly and makes it fight other dogs for money

    Joe thinks Pete is mean and immoral

    Pete thinks Joe is too sensitive

    Pete and Joe both think Frank is a monster

    Frank thinks they should mind their own business

    who is ' moral ' here?

    None! Until Pete and Joe get together ( and exercise their majority power ) and say that Frank is wrong and make a law that says he can't do that anymore or he'll go to jail...

    now...Frank is doing something immoral...because Pete and Joe made a law saying he is. Now Pete and Joe spread the news from one generation to the next creating a cultural opinion of what is moral and what isn't...soon almost everyone thinks like Pete and Joe...

    and so on...and so on...

    and what does this have to do with ' morality '? Absolutely nothing. Because there's no such thing. It is, whatever the ' majority ' decides it to be. And that's why it's acceptable to cut off a thief's hands one place and not another.


  6. #6
    Lobotomized Angry Citizen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    11,107
    Threads
    181
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    10
    Mentioned
    42 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Joe thinks it's better to keep criminals alive...they might reform...we might accidentally kill an innocent party

    Pete thinks that we should kill criminals...that way they cannot commit more crimes...create more victims...one innocent death is better than the creation of 1000 new victims

    both think they have the best moral position...when, in fact, they have an opinion... and it is the person who has the most like-thinking people behind them who gets to rule their opinion over the opinions of others.
    *shrug* That's why there's philosophical debate. We may only arrive at the appropriate conclusion through rational discourse.

    Joe loves his dog...never smacks it...is offended by the very notion

    Pete loves his dog...smacks it but only whenever the dog does something wrong

    Frank loves his dog but beats it regularly and makes it fight other dogs for money
    Joe is clearly the most moral of the group. Who says? I fucking do. So there. Morality decided. To hell with majority rule. Most of the time, majorities have it bass ackward. Don't make me Godwin's Law this thread, or come up with any number of other examples where the majority was flat out wrong.

    A man said to the universe:
    "Sir, I exist!"
    "However," replied the universe,
    "The fact has not created in me
    A sense of obligation."


    -- Stephen Crane

  7. #7
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    everywhere
    Posts
    5,086
    Threads
    103
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Who says? I fucking do. So there.
    That's the best argument you can make AC? Stick to what you're good at. Human nature, philosophy, and societal development are not your strong suits.

    Science and mathematics are your strong suits.


  8. #8
    Lobotomized Angry Citizen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    11,107
    Threads
    181
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    10
    Mentioned
    42 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    If the best you can make is that coalescence of the oft-ignorant grants morality to an action, then I think I've soundly defeated yours. Would you like me to note the stunning number of instances in which your majority-rule theory of morality led to incalculable misery? Again, only through philosophy may we decide what is right.

    Let's see. Hitler and the Nazi regime, the foul treatment of Japanese-Americans during World War II, the crucifixion of witches under the Malleus Maleficarum, the vehement support of slavery in the Confederate States of America, the Reconquista ... all of these were done with the aid of majority opinion. Those are five examples that are separated either geographically or chronologically by large quantities. Would you like me to name more?

    A man said to the universe:
    "Sir, I exist!"
    "However," replied the universe,
    "The fact has not created in me
    A sense of obligation."


    -- Stephen Crane

  9. #9
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    everywhere
    Posts
    5,086
    Threads
    103
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Until we can prove that ' justice ' exists morality is as much wishful thinking as a belief in a loving compassionate deity.

    Morality without justice is nothing more than the majority ( or the powerful ) fostering their ' opinions ' on anyone who disagrees. A cannibal in Borneo is not immoral...until others tell him that he is and force that belief upon him.

    AC you want your cake and eat it too...you want to deny the belief in god but the denial of the belief in morality offends you...when neither can be proven.

    You must be a man of ' faith '...because that's all you have to back up your morality.

    Your opinions are fickle according to what you want to believe.


  10. #10
    Lobotomized Angry Citizen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    11,107
    Threads
    181
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    10
    Mentioned
    42 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Dio, you're throwing semantics at me. You can't even differentiate between justice and morality.

    A man said to the universe:
    "Sir, I exist!"
    "However," replied the universe,
    "The fact has not created in me
    A sense of obligation."


    -- Stephen Crane

  11. #11
    Destroyer of Worlds minorwork's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    central Illinois
    Posts
    8,082
    Threads
    124
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Quote by: Diogenes View Post
    ...and what does this have to do with ' morality '? Absolutely nothing. Because there's no such thing. It is, whatever the ' majority ' decides it to be. And that's why it's acceptable to cut off a thief's hands one place and not another.
    Doggone, Dio. How's a person to justify a self righteous, superior than thou attitude with that philosophy? Think those self righteous ethical vegans would embrace it?

    If the terrain and the map do not agree, follow the terrain.

    When motherhood becomes the fruit of a deep yearning, not the result of ignorance or accident, its children will become a new race.

  12. #12
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    everywhere
    Posts
    5,086
    Threads
    103
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    You can't even differentiate between justice and morality.

    They cannot exist as separate independent entities...you can't say it's wrong to beat a person to death and then have no consequences for that action if the person manages to avoid capture.


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •