Welcome to Atheist Discussion, a new community created by former members of The Thinking Atheist forum.

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
A Naturalistic World

A Naturalistic World
(07-15-2021, 07:11 PM)Percie Wrote:
(07-15-2021, 07:02 PM)airportkid Wrote: Except gods make people the instruments of their "will".  That makes you (and all your deluded ilk) a menace to the safety of humanity.

Yep, ain't no worse place to be than near a church on Sunday morning.

Except as in Texas or or all the other places where your hapless deity permits people who worship him to get shot to death.
Is that "better off" ?
LMAO
https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/texas-...ip-n817786

And as far as this "might makes right" goes, Percie has proven he really doesn't buy that crap.
He spent many many posts trying to justify slavery in the Bible, .... with all the attendant bullshit he posted.
Thus proving he did indeed feel the NEED to demonstrate that not only is his god subject to the ethical values all of us are, but that it really is a scandal that the Bible demonstrates he totally fails on that count.
Test
Reply

A Naturalistic World
(07-15-2021, 07:05 PM)vulcanlogician Wrote: How can you say that? It seems like there is a principle at work in your system that you haven't elaborated upon. After all, "might makes right"... that's easy to understand. That means if the devil somehow became stronger than god, you'd say: "Time to switch sides."

Or if a person became stronger than God, "it's time to serve that person rather than God." After all, that person would pretty much qualify as a god at that point. A better god than God even.

Note that I previously said an almighty god, which as I use it precludes the possibility of being eclipsed in might by another being.

Quote:I don't know where you get the "for gods not people" clause though. Why doesn't "might makes right" translate over into the realm of people? Why shouldn't it?

Because local, temporal, relative might must eventually answer to eternal universal might.

Quote:I get that God's commands trumps all people's because of the power differential. And I get that God may sometimes command that you favor weak people over strong ones.

But what about issues where God hasn't laid down a law on the matter? In that case (if your principle is might makes right) then you ought to always side with the strongest person involved in any debate. After all, that's what "might makes right" entails. If you don't like THAT, than you have an issue with might makes right IN PRINCIPLE.

If God hasn't laid down a specific law, you do your best to interpret the situation according to Biblical principles.
Reply

A Naturalistic World
(07-15-2021, 07:26 PM)Percie Wrote:
(07-15-2021, 07:05 PM)vulcanlogician Wrote: How can you say that? It seems like there is a principle at work in your system that you haven't elaborated upon. After all, "might makes right"... that's easy to understand. That means if the devil somehow became stronger than god, you'd say: "Time to switch sides."

Or if a person became stronger than God, "it's time to serve that person rather than God." After all, that person would pretty much qualify as a god at that point. A better god than God even.

Note that I previously said an almighty god, which as I use it precludes the possibility of being eclipsed in might by another being.

Quote:I don't know where you get the "for gods not people" clause though. Why doesn't "might makes right" translate over into the realm of people? Why shouldn't it?

Because local, temporal, relative might must eventually answer to eternal universal might.

Quote:I get that God's commands trumps all people's because of the power differential. And I get that God may sometimes command that you favor weak people over strong ones.

But what about issues where God hasn't laid down a law on the matter? In that case (if your principle is might makes right) then you ought to always side with the strongest person involved in any debate. After all, that's what "might makes right" entails. If you don't like THAT, than you have an issue with might makes right IN PRINCIPLE.

If God hasn't laid down a specific law, you do your best to interpret the situation according to Biblical principles.

So then, you do kill your disobedient children.

"If any man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey his father or his mother, and when they chastise him, he will not even listen to them, then his father and mother shall seize him, and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gateway of his home town. And they shall say to the elders of his city, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey us, he is a glutton and a drunkard.” Then all the men of his city shall stone him to death; so you shall remove the evil from your midst, and all Israel shall hear of it and fear."
Deuteronomy 21: 18-21.
Test
The following 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post:
  • vulcanlogician, Deesse23
Reply

A Naturalistic World
(07-15-2021, 07:26 PM)Percie Wrote:
(07-15-2021, 07:05 PM)vulcanlogician Wrote: How can you say that? It seems like there is a principle at work in your system that you haven't elaborated upon. After all, "might makes right"... that's easy to understand. That means if the devil somehow became stronger than god, you'd say: "Time to switch sides."

Or if a person became stronger than God, "it's time to serve that person rather than God." After all, that person would pretty much qualify as a god at that point. A better god than God even.

Note that I previously said an almighty god, which as I use it precludes the possibility of being eclipsed in might by another being.

Quote:I don't know where you get the "for gods not people" clause though. Why doesn't "might makes right" translate over into the realm of people? Why shouldn't it?

Because local, temporal, relative might must eventually answer to eternal universal might.

Quote:I get that God's commands trumps all people's because of the power differential. And I get that God may sometimes command that you favor weak people over strong ones.

But what about issues where God hasn't laid down a law on the matter? In that case (if your principle is might makes right) then you ought to always side with the strongest person involved in any debate. After all, that's what "might makes right" entails. If you don't like THAT, than you have an issue with might makes right IN PRINCIPLE.

If God hasn't laid down a specific law, you do your best to interpret the situation according to Biblical principles.

Sure. But that sounds like religious apologetics to me. Can you defend "might makes right" in a godless world?

Like your theist friends, I find might makes right dissatisfying. Obviously THEY have a problem with it (and they believe in God). I ALSO have a problem with it, and I don't believe.

Seems to me, justification for the principle itself is needed... not just an explanation of how it can be congruent with religious belief.

So... use your imagination. In a godless universe, how could might make right?
The following 1 user Likes vulcanlogician's post:
  • GenesisNemesis
Reply

A Naturalistic World
(07-15-2021, 08:38 PM)vulcanlogician Wrote: So... use your imagination. In a godless universe, how could might make right?

The argument that "atheism leads to dictatorships blah blah blah" never made sense to me, because in a godless Universe no one would have absolute power over any other being, objectively speaking. So, if we go by the same logic as "there's no reason to be moral if morality is not objective!", there wouldn't be any objective reason to desire absolute power over any beings. Which begs the question of, why would it be inherently logical for an atheist to become a dictator/atheism leading to dictatorships, as Christian fundamentalists tend to suggest?
“For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.” -Carl Sagan.
Reply

A Naturalistic World
(07-15-2021, 07:26 PM)Percie Wrote:
(07-15-2021, 07:05 PM)vulcanlogician Wrote: How can you say that? It seems like there is a principle at work in your system that you haven't elaborated upon. After all, "might makes right"... that's easy to understand. That means if the devil somehow became stronger than god, you'd say: "Time to switch sides."

Or if a person became stronger than God, "it's time to serve that person rather than God." After all, that person would pretty much qualify as a god at that point. A better god than God even.

Note that I previously said an almighty god, which as I use it precludes the possibility of being eclipsed in might by another being.

Quote:I don't know where you get the "for gods not people" clause though. Why doesn't "might makes right" translate over into the realm of people? Why shouldn't it?

Because local, temporal, relative might must eventually answer to eternal universal might.

Quote:I get that God's commands trumps all people's because of the power differential. And I get that God may sometimes command that you favor weak people over strong ones.

But what about issues where God hasn't laid down a law on the matter? In that case (if your principle is might makes right) then you ought to always side with the strongest person involved in any debate. After all, that's what "might makes right" entails. If you don't like THAT, than you have an issue with might makes right IN PRINCIPLE.

If God hasn't laid down a specific law, you do your best to interpret the situation according to Biblical principles.

There is no one set of agreed-upon "Biblical Principles".
There are about as many interpretations as there are beliebers.

God "laid down" nothing. Every piece of literature on Earth was written by humans.
It was written with human vocabulary of the time, with idioms and dialects which changed all the time as the culture changed.
Every single line in the Bible has been dissected by scholars, and they know where it came from.
You don't, as you basically know nothing except Fundamentalist apologetics and rationalizations.
Test
Reply

A Naturalistic World
(07-15-2021, 06:02 PM)Percie Wrote: ...I'm in the divine command theory camp, but with a very simple take on it.

Oh dear; my condolences to you.      Tongue

For those unfamiliar with this absurd, fantastical, so-called "theory"...

"Divine Command Theory is the view that morality is somehow dependent upon God, and
that moral obligation consists in obedience to God’s commands. Divine Command Theory
includes the claim that morality is ultimately based on the commands or character of God,
and that the morally right action is the one that God commands or requires.
"
I'm a creationist;   I believe that man created God.
Reply

A Naturalistic World
(07-15-2021, 10:35 AM)Percie Wrote: In this case it does. If there's at least one god that wants humans to engage in some sort of religion, then religion isn't obsolete.

Care to provide some evidence for that gawd?!? Real, testable, verifiable evidence. Until you can provide some evidence, your claim can be dismissed out of hand.
[Image: Bastard-Signature.jpg]
The following 1 user Likes TheGentlemanBastard's post:
  • Cavebear
Reply

A Naturalistic World
(07-15-2021, 06:50 PM)Percie Wrote: Might makes right for god...not for people.

Might doesn't make right, no matter who you are, but especially if you're all powerful. You're describing a malevolent dictatorship.

If you can't see what's wrong with that worldview, you have no moral compass. Not even a broken one.
[Image: Bastard-Signature.jpg]
The following 3 users Like TheGentlemanBastard's post:
  • julep, Deesse23, Szuchow
Reply

A Naturalistic World
(07-15-2021, 07:26 PM)Percie Wrote:
(07-15-2021, 07:05 PM)vulcanlogician Wrote: How can you say that? It seems like there is a principle at work in your system that you haven't elaborated upon. After all, "might makes right"... that's easy to understand. That means if the devil somehow became stronger than god, you'd say: "Time to switch sides."

Or if a person became stronger than God, "it's time to serve that person rather than God." After all, that person would pretty much qualify as a god at that point. A better god than God even.

Note that I previously said an almighty god, which as I use it precludes the possibility of being eclipsed in might by another being.

Quote:I don't know where you get the "for gods not people" clause though. Why doesn't "might makes right" translate over into the realm of people? Why shouldn't it?

Because local, temporal, relative might must eventually answer to eternal universal might.

Quote:I get that God's commands trumps all people's because of the power differential. And I get that God may sometimes command that you favor weak people over strong ones.

But what about issues where God hasn't laid down a law on the matter? In that case (if your principle is might makes right) then you ought to always side with the strongest person involved in any debate. After all, that's what "might makes right" entails. If you don't like THAT, than you have an issue with might makes right IN PRINCIPLE.

If God hasn't laid down a specific law, you do your best to interpret the situation according to Biblical principles.

The Ten Commandments come to mind... Half of which were already understood as practical to any village idiot and the other half making little sense...
Never try to catch a dropped kitchen knife!
Reply

A Naturalistic World
(07-15-2021, 08:38 PM)vulcanlogician Wrote: Sure. But that sounds like religious apologetics to me.

Thank you.

Quote:Can you defend "might makes right" in a godless world?

Sure. Go to the supermarket and look in the meat and insecticide sections. No one claims murder when I eat a steak, or genocide when I spray a colony of ants. Might makes right works when you have superior and inferior beings.

Among humans, it doesn't work.

Quote:Like your theist friends, I find might makes right dissatisfying. Obviously THEY have a problem with it (and they believe in God). I ALSO have a problem with it, and I don't believe.

Do you ever eat meat or swat a harmless fly or set a mousetrap? You probably only have a problem with it when you're the one without the might.

Quote:Seems to me, justification for the principle itself is needed... not just an explanation of how it can be congruent with religious belief.

I haven't claimed that it's justified. If I wanted something that could be debated and justified, I'd go with creator's rights. Might makes right is easier as it has stronger analogies.
Reply

A Naturalistic World
Might makes right does not only bother me because of the god problem (see below), but because there are people willing to completely abandon responsibility for their actions. I can understand that its easy and convenient, but its such a monumental cowardice.

The god problem:
You want to abdicate any responsibility, you want to remove yourself from the realm of moral actors? Fine.
But how do you know you are acting on behalf of a good god, and not an evil one? Because he (allegedly!) "said so"? Because....reasoning? If you can reason that you follow a good god, why cant you reason how to be a good human?

Its an utterly dishonest and at the same time cowardly position. I have zero respect for such ....creatures. Billions of live persons on this planet, but you (not personal you, but general you) chose to suck up to something you cant even demonstrate to exist? Try harder next time.....oh, there wont be a "next time", and thats the tragedy. Thumbsdown
R.I.P. Hannes
The following 4 users Like Deesse23's post:
  • Szuchow, airportkid, TheGentlemanBastard, julep
Reply

A Naturalistic World
(07-16-2021, 08:34 AM)Percie Wrote: Sure. Go to the supermarket and look in the meat and insecticide sections. No one claims murder when I eat a steak, or genocide when I spray a colony of ants...

LOL... poor old Percie has really lost the plot with this absurd conflation.  Humans are by
nature omnivorous—just like other mammals such as bears, pigs, chimpanzees, dogs etc.
And he obviously has no idea of the meaning of "genocide" —the deliberate killing of a large
number of people from a particular nation, religious or ethnic group with the aim of destroying
that nation or group. [from the Ancient Greek word génos —γένος, meaning "race" or "people"]

Insects are now people?  According to Percie, yes.    And bats are birds and dolphins are fish
according to his inerrant [sic ] holy book.

Quote:Do you ever eat meat or swat a harmless fly or set a mousetrap?

See above.  Using the same flimsy argument twice over doesn't make it any more persuasive.

In one instance Percie claims to accept divine command, but then in contradiction of that, also
claims to be a naturalist. He's obviously confused about the entire question of naturalism, as he
is about most other things we debate here, sadly.
I'm a creationist;   I believe that man created God.
Reply

A Naturalistic World
Ah. The "Oh look, you do it therefore it's okay if 'X' does it too."

Or "Hey. If 'X" does that thing then it's okay for 'Y' to do that thing also."

Can any one spot the problem/fallacy with this?  

Mmmmmmm.... Bacon. Tasty, tasty murder.

Deadpan Coffee Drinker
Reply

A Naturalistic World
There is no *thing* which can be called a "divine command".
Any such instruction (command) was invented by a human.
In ancient Hebrew culture, (including the Bible) there were many "divine'' beings ... being divine did not make them either a "god" or equivalent to Yahweh.
When the Witch of Endor (in Kings) conjures the shade (dead spirit) of Samuel for Saul, he asked her what she saw, (only witches could see shades), and she says "I see a DIVINE being, rising up from the Earth". So much for that bullshit.

Divine Command Theory is bullshit.
https://iep.utm.edu/divine-c/#:~:text=In...m%20fairly.

Divine Command Theory also refutes the "omnis", and/or any other superlative one may wish to assign to a particular deity.
Ordinarily if one says "God is good", or "God is loving", ... in saying that sort of thing, there has to actually be a standard for what one is calling the god, EXTERNAL to the god. Even to say "God exists" means that non-existence existed as a "state", alongside God, and God was never the totality of Reality, which he had to be, if he's really God. If something is ethical or moral simply because a god commands it, then it's nothing but a meaningless tautology.
Test
The following 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post:
  • Deesse23, SYZ
Reply

A Naturalistic World
(07-16-2021, 08:34 AM)Percie Wrote: I'd go with creator's rights.

As in the creators rights to choose the method by which he smites his beloved creation? Evidently a few days ago he thought 'Fuck it I'm bored with this plagen malarkey' and chose the Tab key.

[Image: d17fm8-ec847f33-8b9e-4f67-a8c4-8b9022dc3...1lBNNscQ14]

Forget 'naturalistic' whatever that is, here's a bit of real nature. I knew it was bad but look at the before & after image halfway down the page. Holy Shit!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-57867773
Reply

A Naturalistic World
(07-14-2021, 05:14 PM)SYZ Wrote: Personally, I've never come into contact with an atheist who thinks this way—that religion is a force per se.  Atheist in general do agree however that the impact of religion on our societies has a more detrimental effect than it does a beneficial effectry.

I think religion is indeed a force by dint of the fact that so many adhere to their faith, no matter what it is. Here in America, we still see its footprints in blue laws and the like.

I'm pretty sure our religious environments were and are pretty different, so our experiences not matching up isn't a point of disagreement for me -- just so you know. I think this is a point where we can be, and probably are, both right.

Cheers, brotha.
On hiatus.
The following 1 user Likes Thumpalumpacus's post:
  • SYZ
Reply

A Naturalistic World
(07-14-2021, 05:47 PM)Percie Wrote: No one has proven that no gods exist, [...]

Someone here is shifting the burden of evidence.

(07-14-2021, 05:47 PM)Percie Wrote: [...] and in some measures of well-being, people who regularly attend religious services are better off.

Yes, and placebos are a thing too. Might you justify your non sequitur here?
On hiatus.
The following 3 users Like Thumpalumpacus's post:
  • Alan V, Szuchow, Deesse23
Reply

A Naturalistic World
(07-16-2021, 11:13 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:
(07-14-2021, 05:47 PM)Percie Wrote: No one has proven that no gods exist, [...]

Someone here is shifting the burden of evidence.

(07-14-2021, 05:47 PM)Percie Wrote: [...] and in some measures of well-being, people who regularly attend religious services are better off.

Yes, and placebos are a thing too. Might you justify your non sequitur here?

No one has proven that pink sparkly unicorns don't exist, either.
I do wonder why Percie has learned nothing AT ALL, in the years he claims to have been *doing* this.
Test
Reply

A Naturalistic World
(07-16-2021, 11:16 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote: No one has proven that pink sparkly unicorns don't exist, either.
I do wonder why Percie has learned nothing AT ALL, in the years he claims to have been *doing* this.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and what he offers is to me very unsatisfying.
On hiatus.
The following 1 user Likes Thumpalumpacus's post:
  • TheGentlemanBastard
Reply

A Naturalistic World
(07-16-2021, 04:16 PM)Peebothuhlu Wrote: Ah. The "Oh look, you do it therefore it's okay if 'X' does it too."

Yep. Unless there's a material difference between you and X, and assuming you approve of what you're doing, that logic holds.
Reply
Smile 
A Naturalistic World
(07-16-2021, 12:39 PM)Deesse23 Wrote: Its an utterly dishonest and at the same time cowardly position. I have zero respect for such ....creatures. 

Wow, you openly dehumanize human beings who have different beliefs than yourself.
Reply

A Naturalistic World
(07-17-2021, 12:37 AM)Percie Wrote:
(07-16-2021, 12:39 PM)Deesse23 Wrote: Its an utterly dishonest and at the same time cowardly position. I have zero respect for such ....creatures. 

Wow, you openly dehumanize human beings who have different beliefs than yourself.

*As if* Fundamentalists (such as yourself) don't do exactly the same thing. LOL
Suddenly Percie has morphed into a liberal.
LMAO
Test
Reply

A Naturalistic World
Yeah... you're fucking church assholes would never do that, right?
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
Reply

A Naturalistic World
(07-17-2021, 12:34 AM)Percie Wrote:
(07-16-2021, 04:16 PM)Peebothuhlu Wrote: Ah. The "Oh look, you do it therefore it's okay if 'X' does it too."

Yep. Unless there's a material difference between you and X, and assuming you approve of what you're doing, that logic holds.


Soooo... what's the 'Material' differeance between yourself and some one who jumps/falls off a bridge, as an example say?
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)