The Killing Joke

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
641

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
No, I think their actions are immoral. So do you. They think their actions are objectively moral and commanded by the will of god. Which of us is right? How do we prove which is right? Claiming morality is “objective” means that it exists independently of any of us, but how is this concept useful when people can’t even agree on the rules?
[/quote]

Bingo.

If the CH attackers are right about who their god is and what he wants, what they did was moral.

Can a Christian show that the CH attackers are not right about who there god is/what he wants? Can he (the Christian) do it without also showing that he himself is not right about who his god is/what his god wants?[/quote]

Wouldn’t it make sense that humans might not be the best at interpreting the messages, intentions and creations of an omnipotent being? Therefore making it very reasonable, that no, we aren’t all going to see everything the same way as moral or immoral.

Wouldn’t this also explain shit like the fact slavery was totally cool with every major civilization up until a couple hundred years ago, and other such abhorrent things we shun today (and others we embrace, like vacuuming out innocent babies)?

It just seems to me you guys are giving humans way too much credit. Who really knows if we understand God’s morality at all yet?[/quote]

My basic point is that claiming that morality is “objective” isn’t useful and doesn’t solve any practical problems unless we can all agree on what is moral. Precisely because humans can’t know what god’s will is or prove the claim one way or the other. We still have to fight for the right rules and then enforce the rules through human institutions. So, even if morality is, in fact, objective, in the sense that the rules are handed down by god, where does that get us if we can’t prove what the rules are?

642

[quote]hmm87 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]on edge wrote:
You have to prove the existence of god before you can even begin to argue morality comes from god. [/quote]

But you don’t need to prove the absence of God in order to say there doesn’t need to be a divine creator for morality to exist?

You can will facts from thin air based on your faith, but thumb your nose at those whose faith leads to a differing conclusion?[/quote]

You can’t prove that something does not exist.
[/quote]

You’re either missing or ignoring the point.

And yes, I can prove the the hole SMH said I have in my shoe, certainly doesn’t exist.

644

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

My basic point is that claiming that morality is “objective” isn’t useful and doesn’t solve any practical problems unless we can all agree on what is moral. [/quote]

On a short enough time line, sure. On a long enough time line, the simple suggestion that we can “improve” as a species will lead to our improvement.

[quote] So, even if morality is, in fact, objective, in the sense that the rules are handed down by god, where does that get us if we can’t prove what the rules are?

[/quote]

Conscious of our own short comings, and actively trying to be less of an asshole than we were before?

645

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]twojarslave wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]on edge wrote:
You have to prove the existence of god before you can even begin to argue morality comes from god. [/quote]

But you don’t need to prove the absence of God in order to say there doesn’t need to be a divine creator for morality to exist?

You can will facts from thin air based on your faith, but thumb your nose at those whose faith leads to a differing conclusion?[/quote]

Does one need to prove the absence of sorcerers to say that magic doesn’t exist, or does a simple lack of evidence give us enough to form an opinion on the matter?
[/quote]

Okay… So you’re saying a lack of evidence is sufficient for one to base an opinion on?

[/quote]

Sure. Everyone does it all of the time. Someone else coined the term, but let’s accept that most people today are aTHORists, and this is not at all a controversial opinion. As cool as he is, Thor is sorely lacking in modern disciples.

Can you prove that Thor, God of Thunder and Oak, does not exist?

If not, do you believe in his existence?

If not, why not?

646

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

My basic point is that claiming that morality is “objective” isn’t useful and doesn’t solve any practical problems unless we can all agree on what is moral. [/quote]

On a short enough time line, sure. On a long enough time line, the simple suggestion that we can “improve” as a species will lead to our improvement.

[quote] So, even if morality is, in fact, objective, in the sense that the rules are handed down by god, where does that get us if we can’t prove what the rules are?

[/quote]

Conscious of our own short comings, and actively trying to be less of an asshole than we were before? [/quote]

Well, I agree 100% with your goal.

647

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
No, I think their actions are immoral. So do you. They think their actions are objectively moral and commanded by the will of god. Which of us is right? How do we prove which is right? Claiming morality is “objective” means that it exists independently of any of us, but how is this concept useful when people can’t even agree on the rules?
[/quote]

Bingo.

If the CH attackers are right about who their god is and what he wants, what they did was moral.

Can a Christian show that the CH attackers are not right about who there god is/what he wants? Can he (the Christian) do it without also showing that he himself is not right about who his god is/what his god wants?[/quote]

Wouldn’t it make sense that humans might not be the best at interpreting the messages, intentions and creations of an omnipotent being? Therefore making it very reasonable, that no, we aren’t all going to see everything the same way as moral or immoral.

Wouldn’t this also explain shit like the fact slavery was totally cool with every major civilization up until a couple hundred years ago, and other such abhorrent things we shun today (and others we embrace, like vacuuming out innocent babies)?

It just seems to me you guys are giving humans way too much credit. Who really knows if we understand God’s morality at all yet?[/quote]

I don’t think you’re taking my meaning.

I’m not arguing that the plurality of religious interpretation is evidence of the nonexistence of the divine.

I’m simply making the point that if the true god is the god of Mohamed Atta, then 9/11 was objectively good.

Which gets at my penultimate post about objective morality being but god’s subjective morality as considered from a human perspective, and the possibly greater attractiveness of a morality that is simply invented/enforced by humans.[/quote]

Wish just as hard as your Disney-ed mind can possibly wish but deep down inside you KNOW your last paragraph is bullshit.[/quote]

There isn’t an argument here. There is literally nothing for me to respond to – you might as well have written a bunch of random numbers and posted that. I don’t even know what your objection is. Not that you necessarily do either.

650

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
No, I think their actions are immoral. So do you. They think their actions are objectively moral and commanded by the will of god. Which of us is right? How do we prove which is right? Claiming morality is “objective” means that it exists independently of any of us, but how is this concept useful when people can’t even agree on the rules?
[/quote]

Bingo.

If the CH attackers are right about who their god is and what he wants, what they did was moral.

Can a Christian show that the CH attackers are not right about who there god is/what he wants? Can he (the Christian) do it without also showing that he himself is not right about who his god is/what his god wants?[/quote]

Wouldn’t it make sense that humans might not be the best at interpreting the messages, intentions and creations of an omnipotent being? Therefore making it very reasonable, that no, we aren’t all going to see everything the same way as moral or immoral.

Wouldn’t this also explain shit like the fact slavery was totally cool with every major civilization up until a couple hundred years ago, and other such abhorrent things we shun today (and others we embrace, like vacuuming out innocent babies)?

It just seems to me you guys are giving humans way too much credit. Who really knows if we understand God’s morality at all yet?[/quote]

I don’t think you’re taking my meaning.

I’m not arguing that the plurality of religious interpretation is evidence of the nonexistence of the divine.

I’m simply making the point that if the true god is the god of Mohamed Atta, then 9/11 was objectively good.

Which gets at my penultimate post about objective morality being but god’s subjective morality as considered from a human perspective, and the possibly greater attractiveness of a morality that is simply invented/enforced by humans.[/quote]

Wish just as hard as your Disney-ed mind can possibly wish but deep down inside you KNOW your last paragraph is bullshit.[/quote]

There isn’t an argument here. There is literally nothing for to respond to – you might as well have written a bunch of random numbers and posted that. I don’t even know what your objection is. Not that you necessarily do either.[/quote]

It’s simple. Your speculation relies on the premise that man is inherently good. Mine relies on the opposite.
[/quote]

What? I neither believe that, nor have I implied it, nor have I said anything that requires it. Man doesn’t need to be inherently anything for me to prefer that what is good be my decision rather than that of some god who owes me no explanation.

After all, maybe god is Moloch, and we are all living lives of enormous sin (in that presumably none of us has tossed our children into any fires).

Or maybe god is Allah as understood by Mohamed Atta.

Or maybe god is your god, and Jeffrey Dahmer is playing darts with Jesus while my atheist relatives roast in a fiery hell.

In all three cases, I much prefer my “subjective” morality.

Edited.

653

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]hmm87 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]on edge wrote:
You have to prove the existence of god before you can even begin to argue morality comes from god. [/quote]

But you don’t need to prove the absence of God in order to say there doesn’t need to be a divine creator for morality to exist?

You can will facts from thin air based on your faith, but thumb your nose at those whose faith leads to a differing conclusion?[/quote]

You can’t prove that something does not exist.
[/quote]

You’re either missing or ignoring the point.

And yes, I can prove the the hole SMH said I have in my shoe, certainly doesn’t exist. [/quote]

you got me there

654

[quote]twojarslave wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]twojarslave wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]on edge wrote:
You have to prove the existence of god before you can even begin to argue morality comes from god. [/quote]

But you don’t need to prove the absence of God in order to say there doesn’t need to be a divine creator for morality to exist?

You can will facts from thin air based on your faith, but thumb your nose at those whose faith leads to a differing conclusion?[/quote]

Does one need to prove the absence of sorcerers to say that magic doesn’t exist, or does a simple lack of evidence give us enough to form an opinion on the matter?
[/quote]

Okay… So you’re saying a lack of evidence is sufficient for one to base an opinion on?

[/quote]

Sure. Everyone does it all of the time. [/quote]

So faith is appropriate evidence then?

[quote] Someone else coined the term, but let’s accept that most people today are aTHORists, and this is not at all a controversial opinion. As cool as he is, Thor is sorely lacking in modern disciples.

Can you prove that Thor, God of Thunder and Oak, does not exist?[/quote]

No, but I don’t care either way.

I believe in existence. I do not concern myself with names, descriptions, back stories, prophets, various holy books, or any inane particulars that others do. I believe in what some call “god” some “nature” some “karma” some “fate” etc, etc etc, so on and so forth until all iterations of the same idea have been exhausted. A grand Architect.

I don’t know if that Creator cares about me, us or anyone, I don’t know that “care” or emotion is something that even pertains to it. I don’t know where it came from, if “creation” even applies to it, assuming time is a construct only applicable to physical life.

Shit I don’t know a lot fo things. And in the end, I don’t care. Because I do know my relationship with the GA, and am completely and utterly comfortable with it, and comfortable with the painfully obvious fact that there is a lot of faith involved.

So do I believe in Thor? Sure, why not. It doesn’t matter, not for a split second. I can swear an oath on any holy book, or in any name considered divine and it will have the same binding effect on me. Because I swearing on my faith, not on the book, the paper or the letters in it or what they say. The books are just symbols of an overall ideal. And all religions throughout time have had, if you take a macro enough view, the same ideal.

Do I believe in Thor? No, not at all. But it doesn’t matter.

655

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]smh wrote:

What? I neither believe that nor have implied it nor have said anything that requires it.

[/quote]

“The possibly greater attractiveness of a morality that is simply invented/enforced by humans.”[/quote]

This doesn’t mean that humans do an acceptable job of it, and it doesn’t require anything like inherent goodness.

It simply means that maybe a human, messy, varied job of morality-making is preferable to the alternative.

Edited.

656

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
…the painfully obvious fact that there is a lot of faith involved.
[/quote]

Bingo.

I don’t have that sort of faith, not when it comes to believing about the supernatural.

If you stop and think about why you don’t have faith in Thor, you might come to understand why I don’t have faith in Yaweh, Jehova, The Holy Trinity or whatever other name people give to their god or gods. The faith is just not there for me.

There’s really nothing more to it than that.

Back to the original topic, I believe that these men had a great deal of faith that they were engaging in a deeply moral action as instruments of their God’s will, and I think that is horrible. A love of life and a deep appreciation for the richness of the human experience is all I need to come to that conclusion. Taking that experience away from other people is wrong.

edit: I’m not a pacifist, for the record. I believe in self-defense and justified acts of killing, but that is an entirely different topic.

657

[quote]twojarslave wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
…the painfully obvious fact that there is a lot of faith involved.
[/quote]

Bingo.

I don’t have that sort of faith, not when it comes to believing about the supernatural.

If you stop and think about why you don’t have faith in Thor, you might come to understand why I don’t have faith in Yaweh, Jehova, The Holy Trinity or whatever other name people give to their god or gods. The faith is just not there for me.

There’s really nothing more to it than that.[/quote]

But you’ve already said faith is good enough to base opinion on. Which means that if someone’s faith tells them that God has given man morals, then that is enough for you to believe it is true. And conversely, when OnEdge says his faith tells him that one doesn’t need God for morals to exist, even though he will refuse to use those words for obvious reasons, you have to also believe that is true.

It seems to me to be a folly to assume god’s will also is the moral option. In fact, it would make more sense to me, that sometimes, God’s will would be immoral. God is God, not bound by a morality that a human would be, if humans are. therefore God’s will, if will even applies to the omnipotent, would certainly fly in the face of morality from time to time.

Seems like no better test of one’s self, faith, lack there of, conviction, etc than to have the will of the Creator go against what you believe to be right.

[quote]edit: I’m not a pacifist, for the record. I believe in self-defense and justified acts of killing, but that is an entirely different topic.
[/quote]

You don’t come off as a pinko, no worries.

658

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
It simply means that maybe a human, messy, varied job of morality-making is preferable to the alternative.

Edited.[/quote]

I mean, I can’t help but think of gas chambers, chained slaves, and vacuumed babies whenever I read this.

But in the end, if we suck huge balls at being moral, which human history tends to show… (At least a significant minority really suck at it) does it matter where the morals come from?

I’d say no…

659

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

But in the end, if we suck huge balls at being moral, which human history tends to show… (At least a significant minority really suck at it) does it matter where the morals come from?

I’d say no…[/quote]

That’s essentially the message I’ve been trying to express.

660

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
It simply means that maybe a human, messy, varied job of morality-making is preferable to the alternative.

Edited.[/quote]

I mean, I can’t help but think of gas chambers, chained slaves, and vacuumed babies whenever I read this. [/quote]

God or no god, these things happened. What is at issue is whether or not their having happened is regrettable because you and I say so, or because god says so.