Register | Sign In

Understanding through Discussion

EvC Forum active members: 50 (9179 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,206 Year: 5,463/9,624 Month: 488/323 Week: 128/204 Day: 2/26 Hour: 0/2

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   What to say if you met God/god/Gods/gods
mike the wiz
Member (Idle past 107 days)
Posts: 4755
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003

Message 97 of 116 (800890)
03-01-2017 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Tangle
02-06-2015 9:24 AM

I remember hearing some of Fry's argument, which was basically an argument from outrage fallacy, which included the phrase, "how dare you" in regards to the sufferings of children in the third world, IIRC. In this example the relative moralist basically shouts or is outraged, almost like a mother of a murdered victim, and this gives the sense that the responder or the one who disagrees, is flustered and tends to feel GUILT to the point of silence. Usually this type of fallacy probably isn't intended or the person is not conscious that they are taking the position of being all-righteous, without proving they in fact are.
Of course intellectually this is absurd, so he can't be that smart, IMHO, because from the point of view of a person with a finite mind and a relative grasp of morality, how could that frame-of-reference be valid when questioning an omniscient God? So then a hidden assumption is that God isn't all knowing, and doesn't know what he is doing in allowing negative circumstances, which again, is patently absurd, intellectually for if He is God, how could He not be aware of such things and the reasons He has allowed them?
This basically means the recipient of the moral attack, is silent. As we know, God doesn't answer to puny humans, but nevertheless where an accused person cannot or will not give a defence, it is unfair to expect the absent party to automatically be deemed guilty, especially if that party has the ability to think on a far superior scale to the accuser but is silent.
This is always the problem with arguments from morality, if there is no real basis for morality to begin with then the argument fails, because to refute the argument you only need two words from the same equivalent, relative standpoint; "I disagree". Essentially Fry's argument was one of moral outrage, but with his atheist position, essentially he is sawing off the branch he is sitting on. That branch is, "morality". If the universe is an accident and there ultimately is no right or wrong objectively speaking, then how can you indict someone with wrongdoing, when that would only be your relative version of it? In other words to refute Fry I need two words; "I disagree".
Conclusion; it's easy to basically arguing from an outraged, self-righteous position, but logically the person that argues from this position assumes moral purity, and basically moral perfection, for if they are not perfect examples of righteousness, and their mind is not a perfectly all knowledgeable mind but a finite, limited one, then why should we listen to that particular persons subjective frame of reference?
Why for example, is a theists frame of reference of less worth? So then the whole thing becomes a matter of opinion.
As for explanations within the bible, the Christian God of the bible has given answers to some of the questions we may all ask, for example if there aren't consequences for a fallen world, and there are no negative effects, then what would that say about what the serpent said? It would suggest the serpent was correct, and God wrong, and that it would all be wonderful, so then from that perspective, theologically it makes sense that if mankind chooses a Godless path, that God is obliged to show the full horrific consequences of that sinful path. If the world was a paradise, that would then be God "okaying" the sinful nature.
But Fry's ignorance of the bible wouldn't have him think that far.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Tangle, posted 02-06-2015 9:24 AM Tangle has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-01-2017 5:57 PM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 104 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-02-2017 1:19 AM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 106 by Stile, posted 03-02-2017 10:16 AM mike the wiz has not replied

mike the wiz
Member (Idle past 107 days)
Posts: 4755
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003

Message 99 of 116 (800893)
03-01-2017 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Dr Adequate
03-01-2017 5:57 PM

Dr A writes:
So, the old "mysterious ways" defense.
A simplistic strawman fallacy.
DR A writes:
"I think Hitler is perfect. Now, you may object 'but what about the Holocaust?' But it is only imperfect people like you who think there's something wrong with the Holocaust. If you were perfect like Hitler you'd know that it was an excellent idea."
I don't see how this compares to anything I have said. You have committed begging-the-question if Hitler is supposed to be equated to God Almighty, in this example, and so when you say I, "defend evil" for example, under your atheist philosophy, evil would only be a relative term.
What is evil? Define evil under atheism. If the world is an accident, when someone murders you or I, this is the same as two rocks colliding, for two pieces of matter, one striking the other.
Did you even read my post? You can't have the term, "evil" on YOUR SIDE, under atheism, for that begs the question.
Who put you as the moraliser, EXCEPT YOU?
So I regard your post as absurd.
So then,
1. God is not Hitler. (an omniscient and omipotent God can't be compared to Hitler for starters, because what motivates a man does not motivate God.)
2. Evil doesn't exist under atheism.
3. You still use, "evil" and pretend that anyone not of your position is, "evil".
You can't have your cake and eat it. If evil doesn't exist then why are the things you say, "good" or, "moral"?
So then all I am saying is that when people accuse God, they tend to forget that He told mankind not to eat of the tree. Remember, God was correct, death and suffering an misery was absent in the garden.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-01-2017 5:57 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by jar, posted 03-01-2017 6:32 PM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 102 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-02-2017 12:57 AM mike the wiz has not replied

mike the wiz
Member (Idle past 107 days)
Posts: 4755
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003

Message 100 of 116 (800895)
03-01-2017 6:26 PM

In reference to the kind of response to me of this nature; "you approve of evil, God done, evil, answer for it." I can't answer any questions that put atheists as the moral judge over me. As soon as I answer a question like that I DIGNIFY them assuming that position of moralising judge over me and God.
Basically there is an unspoken neurotic request by the atheist that if put into words would look like this; "mike, I am indicting you, now agree I am the moral judge by answering my questions, and my accusations."
It would be a sin for me to HELP YOU with your deception.
You may wish to read the first message I wrote in this thread to better understand the logical predicament you are in as atheists;
Bot Verification

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-02-2017 1:05 AM mike the wiz has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024