Post Reply
Page 28 of 35  •  Prev 1 ... 26 27 28 29 30 ... 35 Next
2 years ago  ::  May 01, 2012 - 9:55AM #271
Blü
Posts: 24,868

Adelphe


Yes, they are moral absolutes.  They are today summed up in "The Two."  The 10 is what it means, in part, to obey the 2.


Then why doesn't Yahweh honor his father and his mother?


And never mention his divorce?



I'm of the opinion that YHWH adheres to His own laws.  That's because they are simply an extension of Him--His very being--and His perfection.  They're not "under Him" and they're not "over Him."  They are because He is and that's the way He is.


The OP and the OT blow that one out of the water.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 01, 2012 - 9:56AM #272
jlb32168
Posts: 13,274

Apr 30, 2012 -- 5:04PM, Paladinsf wrote:

But if the position could be DEMONSTRATED to be true you wouldn't NEED faith.


It seems you’re stating the obvious – almost like “religion is intuitive”, which was the conclusion of a recent study on analytical and intuitive thinking and religion.  I and several others concluded that using analytical thinking 100% of the time made one dumber since “religion is intuitive” is hardly an earth-shattering discovery.


Apr 30, 2012 -- 5:04PM, Paladinsf wrote:

All this mumbo-jumbo you are spouting is just . . {. blah, blah, blah, blah, blah and more of the same "Since I can't rebut your argument, I'll make fun of your deity, which I don't think exists, in efforts to . . . well . . . Oh I just hate you."}


[*snicker*]


Apr 30, 2012 -- 5:04PM, Paladinsf wrote:

The existence of Evil is indefensible UNLESS you first swallow this mythology.


Correct, and since the mythology might be correct the existence is defensible.  [smug smiles]


Apr 30, 2012 -- 5:04PM, Paladinsf wrote:

If course I can [say that an absence of explanation means that God’s actions didn’t accomplish the greatest good]. Because can I take the position, which I do take, that until you demonstrate this goody actually exists it DOESN'T. Default position.


Of course you can take any position you want.  You can take the position that you’re a pizza oven.  That doesn’t make your position a logical one.  The fact of the matter is that I asserted that God’s actions might have accomplished the greatest good in some inscrutable way and you and Blü, begrudgingly and through much kicking and screaming, conceded that my argument had the possibility of being correct.


In short, I’ve made my argument and you’ve both conceded it could be correct.  I won.  You didn’t.  You’re mad.  That’s not my problem.


Apr 30, 2012 -- 5:04PM, Paladinsf wrote:

You guys are intellectual frauds.


Your opinion of my intelligence could not possibly interest me less w/o my being comatose or dead.


Apr 30, 2012 -- 5:04PM, Paladinsf wrote:

Most of you haven't got the guts to be honest and admit this is just another absurd tale of gods and is in no way any more believable than than any other.


I admit that I might be wrong and I admit this quite often.  I considered atheism in college.  Remember?  I got turned off by it because all of the atheists I met were just as narrow-minded and intolerant of others as anybody else who was a theist.  Becoming a secularist was supposed to enlighten and edify since it was the either the truth or at least truer than theism’s POV.  Truth, allegedly, should enlighten and edify.  Secularism didn’t provide the goods; therefore, I concluded its requisite atheism was false.


I regularly see that I made the right choice; I almost see it on a daily basis, in fact.


Apr 30, 2012 -- 5:04PM, Paladinsf wrote:

But you believe this one simply because doing so makes you feel good.


That you think you’re any different than anyone else is comical and shocking at once.  You’re no less indoctrinated and inculcated and that’s no where better evinced than by the fact that you atheists say nothing appreciably different from one another.  That you fancy yourself a “free-thinker” while toeing the party line only demonstrates the power of atheist propaganda, self-denial, and self-deception.


Apr 30, 2012 -- 5:04PM, Paladinsf wrote:

And even we went along with your absurdities the same argument would suggest . . .


My – you’re a sore loser!  Either rebut my argument (which obviously you can't since you conceded it and have become visibily annoyed because you were forced to do so) or disengage from the thread and let those who might rebut it do it for you.

Victim of this, victim of that, your mama’s too thin and your daddy’s too fat, get over it! - the Eagles
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 01, 2012 - 10:01AM #273
jlb32168
Posts: 13,274

Apr 30, 2012 -- 8:13PM, Blü wrote:

Don't pretend now that this was ever your argument. It hasn't been discussed, and had it been, you'd have had to show what actual good was in fact achieved, which you can't do.


Actually, my argument has always been that if God’s actions accomplished the greatest good (which you begrudgingly conceded might have been the case) then it  would be incorrect to charge God with being a moral monster since the two are mutually exclusive.


Now you and Paladin are rather upset because you’re being forced to concede an argument, something you are both loath to do.

Victim of this, victim of that, your mama’s too thin and your daddy’s too fat, get over it! - the Eagles
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 01, 2012 - 10:09AM #274
Blü
Posts: 24,868

Adelphe


YHWH (again) is omnisicent.  Adolf Hitler was not.


As you know, if Yahweh's omniscient then you have no free will.


But leaving that aside, omniscience isn't relevant to jlb's argument.  Instead it requires the critic to admit that he, the critic, can't absolutely show that Yahweh wasn't acting for the greater good.


And the identical argument works for Adolf.  And for every other crook.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 01, 2012 - 10:19AM #275
Blü
Posts: 24,868

jlb


Actually, my argument has always been that if God’s actions accomplished the greatest good (which you begrudgingly conceded might have been the case) then it  would be incorrect to charge God with being a moral monster since the two are mutually exclusive.


I conceded that there are no absolute statements.  Thus I conceded that it can't be shown with absolute certainty that when Yahweh did the appaling acts which the OT attributes to him, some of which are touched on in the OP, he did not intend some greater good.


And I pointed out that exactly the same argument works for every other malefactor, including Adolf.


Your argument has never been that Yahweh actually accomplished some greater good.  Otherwise you'd have to state what that greater good is. 


If you now change your argument and assert that Yahweh's acts accomplished some greater good, point it out to us IN EACH CASE.


Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 01, 2012 - 11:01AM #276
jlb32168
Posts: 13,274

May 1, 2012 -- 10:19AM, Blü wrote:

I conceded that there are no absolute statements. Thus I conceded that it can't be shown with absolute certainty that when Yahweh did the appaling [sic] acts which the OT attributes to him, some of which are touched on in the OP, he did not intend some greater good.


Actually, I said that the onlooker had to  allow that there is a possibility that YHWH’s actions might have accomplish the summum bonum.  I then said that you had admitted that this is a hypothetical possibility.  You responded that you had already said and repeated that “it’s a truly miniscule possibility”, but that I had no evidence of it.


I asserted that if the greatest good was accomplished, then YHWH’s acts weren't appalling.  [P1]YHWH’s acts might have accomplished the greatest good.  [P2]The summum bonum cannot be appalling.  Therefore [C]  YHWH’s acts couldn’t be appalling.


You’re certainly free to argue otherwise.

Victim of this, victim of that, your mama’s too thin and your daddy’s too fat, get over it! - the Eagles
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 01, 2012 - 11:11AM #277
Blü
Posts: 24,868

jlb


Your argument perfectly exonerates Adolf.


If that's what you want, then by all means go for it.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 01, 2012 - 11:33AM #278
jlb32168
Posts: 13,274

May 1, 2012 -- 11:11AM, Blü wrote:

jlb, Your argument perfectly exonerates Adolf. If that's what you want, then by all means go for it.


We know that Hitler did not wish to accomplish the greatest good for all because he said as much.  God did not say so you can only speculate that God’s actions didn’t accomplish the greater good.  Of course, one is also free to speculate that they did accomplish this greatest good so the one significant contrast invalidates any comparison between the two. 


And you’re evading again.  Address the point.  I asserted that if the greatest good was accomplished, then YHWH’s acts weren't appalling. [P1]YHWH’s acts might have accomplished the greatest good. [P2]The summum bonum cannot be appalling. Therefore [C] YHWH’s acts couldn’t be appalling.


You cannot rebut the logic and that’s why you conceded the argument and are attempting to backpeddle now because you hate conceding.  That is why I said that you engaged in immature debate.

Victim of this, victim of that, your mama’s too thin and your daddy’s too fat, get over it! - the Eagles
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 01, 2012 - 11:36AM #279
Blü
Posts: 24,868

jlb


We know that Hitler did not wish to accomplish the greatest good for all because he said as much.


We know that Yahweh ordered the massacre of tribes because of their religion because he said as much.  So we know that Yahweh did not and does not wish to accomplish the greatest good for all because he said as much.


Your first argument was that we couldn't be absolutely sure this attack on religious freedom was not in some unknown way for the greater good.


And this is exactly true of Adolf as I keep pointing out.


If you now wish to wheel in a second argument, that in fact Yahweh accomplished a greater good, POINT IT OUT FOR EACH OF THE CASES REFERRED TO IN THE OP.



Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 01, 2012 - 11:42AM #280
redshifted
Posts: 2,283

May 1, 2012 -- 11:36AM, Blü wrote:


jlb


We know that Hitler did not wish to accomplish the greatest good for all because he said as much.


We know that Yahweh ordered the massacre of tribes because of their religion because he said as much.  So we know that Yahweh did not and does not wish to accomplish the greatest good for all because he said as much.




You're never going to win, Blü. These guys truly believe Yahweh is perfect in every way so he can't possibly do anything wrong, even if his deed is genocide.


Up is down. Circles are squares. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 28 of 35  •  Prev 1 ... 26 27 28 29 30 ... 35 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook