The Root of all Evil : The God Delusion

POSTED BY: Calhoun
UPDATED: Thursday, December 17, 2015 06:12
VIEWED: 49488
PAGE 27 of 32

PREV PAGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 NEXT PAGE

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Monday, May 28, 2007 2:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Is it really death, though, if you've merely left your earthly vessel and still consciously suffer lots of punishment? If you utterly insist on being overtly literal with my words, we'll consider the after-death period as the one that matters.

Non-existent, thus neutral OR possible existent without punishment, thus neutral OR existent and filled with punishment, thus very much not neutral. Can you consider a difference now?

Once again, I don’t see how this amounts to slavery. If you believe that you will spend eternity in hell if you do this or that, but are willing to pay that price to live your life the way you wish, how is that different from what you said about nature? If we can stand the consequences of our bad choices, we can make them.

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
That's like telling a slave they are free to run away if they can stand the consequences of being caught (inevitable in the case of after-death judgment) and punished for the attempt.

Of course slaves got to watch as runaways were beaten; there was a physical element to it, which was much more convincing then a philosophical threat. Yet thousands of slaves in the pre-emancipation US fled at the first opportunity they got. I’m willing to bet you that if you told your slaves that if they didn’t remain your slaves working the cotton fields the only consequent they would suffer would be burning in hell, they’d all be gone by morning, and you’d be out of business.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

AGENTROUKA

Monday, May 28, 2007 2:54 PM

I've said before that I'm not really motivated to keep discussing this. It's my opinion. You have a different one and I am not really out to convince you of it, so... can we just leave each other in peace?

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Once again, I don’t see how this amounts to slavery. If you believe that you will spend eternity in hell if you do this or that, but are willing to pay that price to live your life the way you wish, how is that different from what you said about nature? If we can stand the consequences of our bad choices, we can make them.

You're not listening. I specifically mention the end of one's life as the measuring point because by then you've had all the consequences you can get in life. It's perfectly possible to live a life where at that point you are at peace and full of acceptance for what has been - and still be in conflict with God's law.

If you insert God and his post-life judgment, that's an additional amount of consequences that - if he exists - are absolutely inescapable. It's not about the people, it's about obedience. People don't really have a choice in how they want to live because "if you can stand hell" is not really a viable option.

If God was not a slaver, he would let people make their choices without the threat of hell. Instead, he forces them - either into obedience through fear, or into unbearable suffering for disobedience. There is no freedom in there.

And I'll repeat - again - yes, we are slaves to physical laws and to the idea of consequences to actions in this natural world. But the natural world is not a sentient being that creates its consequences deliberately. It's just a bunch of facts. Nature is a situation. God is a personification as a such a conscious slaver.

To Me.

Quote:

Of course slaves got to watch as runaways were beaten; there was a physical element to it, which was much more convincing then a philosophical threat. Yet thousands of slaves in the pre-emancipation US fled at the first opportunity they got. I’m willing to bet you that if you told your slaves that if they didn’t remain your slaves working the cotton fields the only consequent they would suffer would be burning in hell, they’d all be gone by morning, and you’d be out of business.

The point is, if God exists, hell exists. You can't opt out.

The question is not whether you believe, but whether within the context of that belief God allows for actual free will without insufferable consequences. God's existence is a fact in that hypothetical scenario.

Getting caught, to use the slavery example (i.e. judgment after death) in that context is also not a possibility but a fact.

If slaves knew that they WOULD be caught and brutally punished with NO chance of actual escape, would running away really be a viable option for the slaver to use as an excuse for not being a slaver?

It's like telling a kidnapping victim that they are free to leave but if they so much as move they'll be shot. Where do you draw the line when it comes to coercion and slavery?

MALACHITE

Monday, May 28, 2007 3:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Calhoun:
Quote:
Malachite wrote:
Sunday, May 27, 2007 02:01
Calhoun: Perhaps it is a bit late in the discussion for this, but if we are going to discuss whether the "God Delusion" is the root of all evil, we may need to define what evil is and whether there is such a thing as absolute evil. After we've done that, we may be able to assess whether an atheist like Dawkins really has the philosophical underpinings to claim that something is evil. What I mean is, how does an atheist claim something is evil and therefore wrong? Can an atheist deduce that there are certain absolute evils? How? I thought the morals an atheist could produce was a moral relativism like, "You can have your beliefs and do what you think is good and I'll believe what I want and do what I think is good". If that is the case, how can Dawkins say something is the root of evil when it might actually be defined by someone else as good. So, from his point of view, religion is the root of evil, but from a religious person's point of view, religion is the source of good. How can Dawkins determine who is really right? I think that in order to claim something is truly evil, you have to have some absolutes on what evil is. How does an atheist do this? (I hope I don't sound antagonistic here -- this is something I've really started getting curious about lately).

I think its fair to say that someone who straps explosives to their body to blow up civilians in some sort of religious mission or someone who fly jets into buildings to kill as many civilians as possible in the name of allah.. is evil. If you disagree with this opinion then dont bother responding, you'll be dismissed as another religious nutjob..

You dont need any special qualifications to be able to recognise something as evil. To any reasonably intelligent person it should be obvious.

Hey Calhoun: Let me start out by saying that I'm trying to ask honest questions here and I don't want to come across as inflammatory.

Let me try to flesh out what I'm getting at. My question is, does an atheist have the philosophical underpinnings to get beyond moral relativism to a framework of absolutes? From a theistic standpoint in which one can justify moral absolutes, I can and do call terrorist acts evil. If, however, one does not believe in God, how does one say that it is evil? A westerner might say the terrorist has done an evil act. The terrorist, however, could say they are doing a good act, such as fighting for independence, ridding the world of the evils of western capitalism/materialism or glorifying god , and that they will receive a reward in the afterlife. Each person is right in their own mind. (Incidentally, I think that most people believe that what they are doing is good and right and can at least justify their actions to themselves. Even the Operative from Serenity, who knew he was doing evil, justified it by saying it was for a greater good). From (my current understanding of) the atheist perspective, each person is allowed to have their own belief and it seems impossible to determine who ultimately has the correct moral read on the situation.

Why am I asking this? Because if morals are not absolute and everything is relative, Dawkins can't really justify judging something is "the root of all evil" because his opinion on morals is just as valid as the other side's opinion. All he could say is, "I think religion is the root of all evil, but there is no way to tell if I'm right because the religious person who thinks religion is the root of all good has just as valid an opinion and he might be right. But wait, since everything's relative, there is no ultimate "right" anyway. But if noone's right, why am I so angry about it and why do I feel like an injustice has been done?"

I apologize in advance if this is inflammatory.

Citizen: That is an interesting road you take us down with the definition of evil as anything that interferes with the propagation of the species (I'm not quoting you directly, I k

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Monday, May 28, 2007 3:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
I've said before that I'm not really motivated to keep discussing this. It's my opinion. You have a different one and I am not really out to convince you of it, so... can we just leave each other in peace?

I don’t know, can we? No one’s forcing you to continue this conversation. Unless maybe my voicing a different opinion is causing you to be slave to me. In which case I would: Trim my hedges and mow my lawn, and for every leaf I find in my yard, I shall beat you!

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
You're not listening. I specifically mention the end of one's life as the measuring point because by then you've had all the consequences you can get in life. It's perfectly possible to live a life where at that point you are at peace and full of acceptance for what has been - and still be in conflict with God's law.

So basically, you’re saying that after living a free and completely un-enslaved life, then you become a slave because now you have to pay the consequences for your actions.

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
The point is, if God exists, hell exists. You can't opt out.

There are people who would take objection to that particular view, but okay.

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
The question is not whether you believe, but whether within the context of that belief God allows for actual free will without insufferable consequences. God's existence is a fact in that hypothetical scenario.

I would say that there is no such thing as free will without insufferable consequences, regardless of whether god exists or not. But what this comes down to is that you don’t want to be reminded of the consequences you will face for the poor choices in life.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

AGENTROUKA

Monday, May 28, 2007 3:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I would say that there is no such thing as free will without insufferable consequences, regardless of whether god exists or not. But what this comes down to is that you don’t want to be reminded of the consequences you will face for the poor choices in life.

I'll just disagree here. I think that consequences are very often sufferable. Hell, by definition, is not.

And I take exception not to the idea of consequences but to God sitting on his throne dictating his rules and attached consequences to not obeying. And then apparently not being a slaver.

Consequences are everywhere. But God throwing his almighty weight around to punish us according to his personal ideas of right and wrong, which often revolve around worshipping him, that bothers me. What gives him the right? The fact that he has more power? Slaver.

And now, whether it be good for your lawn or not, it is apparently up to me to just call a definite end to this discussion and say I'm no longer responding. Thanks, anyway.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Monday, May 28, 2007 3:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Consequences are everywhere. But God throwing his almighty weight around to punish us according to his personal ideas of right and wrong, which often revolve around worshipping him, that bothers me. What gives him the right? The fact that he has more power? Slaver.

Okay. I sort of see that as being an extremely archaic interpretation of religion. The only people I know of who follow that particular description of god are fanatics and atheist.

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
And now, whether it be good for your lawn or not, it is apparently up to be to just call a definite end to this discussion and say I'm no longer responding. Thanks, anyway.

Alrighty.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

CAUSAL

Monday, May 28, 2007 4:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Ok, I'm trying to beat you, and you're trying to beat, and insult me, but hey, I'm not entitled to an opinion unless its rubber stamped by you first I guess.

Not at all! You're more than entitled to your opinion. I'd go so far as to say you have a right to have an opinion. And if you'd take a look through some of my other discussions on the thread (most notably those with Khyron and LeadB) you'd see that I'm more than willing to talk with people whose opinions differ radically from mine. I do read a lot of the "you're wrong!" attitude in your original response to me--though perhaps that's due to a defensiveness I built up during my brief stay in the RWE threads (you'll note I don't venture into those discussions very often anymore). I don't have any interest in proving that anyone else is right or wrong or stupid or any such thing. My interest lies in raising and discussing issues. If you think I'm wrong about something, why not just ask questions that challenge my assertions? That seems to be the way the threads have been going. And as far as feeling insulted, I'm not sure exactly what I said that you felt was insulting, but I apologize if I came off that way. I certainly didn't intend to insult you.

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

CAUSAL

Monday, May 28, 2007 4:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
If your point is, I cannot 'accurately' predict how long it will take a penny to fall from a bridge +/- 2 seconds 30 years from now (and you will have to grant any reasonable number of assumptions like 'The bridge exists' and the 'water level is still the same height below it'), I'd be willing to make a fair wager I could. And if the laws of nature change over time such I'm off by 2 seconds, I will still only grant it was a failure of man to understand properly the laws of nature.

Does this add anything to the discussion?

Of course! I'm not a scientist, so some of the numbers made my head spin. But I think that we're in basic agreement--you say that you think that you can predict the amount of time the penny will take to drop, and I think you can to. But the amazing thing about that is that the reason we think that we can predict the amount of time it will take for the penny to drop is because of the expectation that gravity will work in about the same way 30 years from now as it does today. And the amazing thing is this: from a philosophical perspective, there's absolutely no way to prove that that's true! That's what I find incredible.

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Monday, May 28, 2007 5:28 PM

We can’t prove it from a scientific perspective either. We theorize that the gravitational constant is a constant, and so in theory that should be the same in 30 years. But we can't prove the General Theory, so we can't prove the Gravitational Constant. But the acceleration due to gravity is dependent on more then just that constant. It is also dependent on the mass of the earth, which we assume will remain constant over 30 years, but we can’t prove that either. The most we can do is assume it.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

CAUSAL

Monday, May 28, 2007 5:48 PM

Well, I don't know much about the scientific part of that, just the philosophical part. The problem of induction in a nutshell: what justifies us in making inferences about the future from experiences in the past? Curiously: nothing. It seems to work, but there's no way to justify it. Fascinating stuff.

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

PREV PAGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 NEXT PAGE