[quote]knee-gro wrote:
Sorry, messed up the link.
Anyway I hope the King of the Netherlands fire this guy. What kind of politician talks like this about people?
[/quote]
Fire him?? They should give him a medal.
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
I think he agrees the answers are yes, yes, no.
[/quote]
Yes, but that particular set of answers doesn’t mean exactly what many hereabouts think it means.
Consider this axiom: If god does it, it is good; if god says it is good, it is good. This is the ultimate moral relativism, and, vis-a-vis god, the ultimate subjective morality.
I can call charity good because it is “objectively” good, which is really just to say that it is subjectively good with another being as subject.
Or I can call charity good because it is subjectively good, to me. Which is the same as the above with the exception that, on atheism, I make the decisions.
Note that many theists admit that they (cheerily) believe themselves slaves.
Edited.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Yes, this being the point.
[/quote]
But we’re not talking about Nixon we’re talking about God. That is the point. Unless you’re concerned that the Abrahamic God does exist but He is only pretending to be good then I don’t see what the concern is. The Canaanites are dead. For a long time. If people today believe they were really beyond redemption and should have been killed, is neither here not there.
I’ve gone back and read some of your posts. You brought up the holocaust and mentioned killing “whole races” and that was what I was responding to. There are some religious doctrines I find morally unsound - unconditional election for example. Precisely because it involves people absolving themselves of responsibility for their actions in this life. But making a moral judgement about an existential conflict between two Bronze Age civilisations two and a half millennia ago? As I said, that is not going to change how people act today. Whether they’re right or wrong, they believe they’re right and so it’s a purely academic question.
Do tell. What objective, transcendental metaphysical system do you adhere to?
So do I. As I’ve said before, doubt is an aspect of faith.
[quote]
Without which deficiency I would be greatly diminished.
You can go back and figure out what I’m saying. None of the above follows – at all – from my words. I’m not complaining about god’s allegedly having killed people.[/quote]
You brought up the holocaust as a moral conundrum. You also mentioned al Qaeda and their certainty in what they’re doing. I don’t believe they are certain. I think they’re largely mentally unstable misfits - the kind that predominate in the early stages of violent mass movements. Because of their own pathological need to exert power and form an identity and a purpose in life. They’re “true believers” in the sense that they have willingly given themselves over to their cause like a cult member. So they’re not certain. Deep down most of them know they are doing evil.
Now, not believing that they know they do evil opens up a veritable can of worms because if people are not responsible for their own actions then man is ultimately doomed in this world and our entire criminal justice system is a waste of time. But I do not believe that Mohammad Atta or Hitler thought they were noble. I think self loathing was a great part of their respective pathologies. They knew what they were doing was evil and if caught alive they should’ve been held accountable as far as possible for their actions. To believe anything other than that all men are responsible for their actions opens up a moral quagmire.
Edited to fix quotes
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Note that many theists admit that they (cheerily) believe themselves slaves.
Edited.[/quote]
The word “slave” has a bad rap with the PC crowd I know but it all depends on what you mean by “slave”. I think a shepherd and a flock is a better analogy. Or the relationship a dog has with a benevolent master. But yes, Nietzsche criticised the “slave/master” mentality of Christianity as opposed to the supposed “liberating” pagan cults. The pagans had a different understanding of morality - they were amoral and glorified the heroic traits of man which saw their idealised form in the mythologies of the gods and titans.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
You brought up the holocaust as a moral conundrum. [/quote]
Not as a moral conundrum. To illustrate the hypothetical in a way many have not considered it: “could god have smiled on the Holocaust? Would it then be good?” This is not a complaint, and it is certainly not a discussion of the problem of evil – though on that subject, too, there is a whole hell of a lot to say.
Anyway, I see where the confusion happened. Two arguments kind of folded together momentarily. My last post to JJ clears things up I think.
As for my morality: agnosticism is my “religion.” Good may exist inside or outside of my mind, or it may be a structural and necessary property of the universe, or there may be a separate option the contours of which my finite brain can’t even limn. But I know in with certainty that it exists, somehow, somewhere. And this is enough.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Note that many theists admit that they (cheerily) believe themselves slaves.
Edited.[/quote]
The word “slave” has a bad rap with the PC crowd I know but it all depends on what you mean by “slave”.[/quote]
It really doesn’t depend, so far as I’m concerned. For example, these…
[quote]
I think a shepherd and a flock is a better analogy. Or the relationship a dog has with a benevolent master.[/quote]
…get at more or less the same thing, and they are exactly as repulsive to me. That people yearn to be dogs in the service of a benevolent master is truly pathetic in my view. I don’t mean that as an insult. It literally inspires pathos. But then they tend to feel the same about my enormous arrogance, which they think will be duly punished. In which case my point will have been enormously proved.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Not as a moral conundrum. To illustrate the hypothetical in a way many have not considered it: “could god have smiled on the Holocaust? Would it then be good?” This is not a complaint, and it is certainly not a discussion of the problem of evil – though on that subject, too, there is a whole hell of a lot to say.
[/quote]
Okay, my mistake. I thought you were talking about the problem of evil. But your question seems like a strange one. Firstly, it would depend on why you think the holocaust happened. I’m sure you know there are different views on this.
[quote]
Anyway, I see where the confusion happened. Two arguments kind of folded together momentarily. My last post to JJ clears things up I think.
As for my morality: agnosticism is my “religion.” Good may exist inside or outside of my mind, or it may be a structural and necessary property of the universe, or there may be a separate option the contours of which my finite brain can’t even limn. But I know in with certainty that it exists, somehow, somewhere. And this is enough.[/quote]
But you have no belief in any objective metaphysical system which leaves you open to far more moral conundrums than a religious person, with the exception of people who believe they need to kill people today for their religion that is.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
But you have no belief in any objective metaphysical system which leaves you open to far more moral conundrums than a religious person…
[/quote]
Not really: I believe good exists, though I don’t know how. I believe that the light of reason can show it to me, though I don’t know how. The theory is a mess, but the practice is very simple. Like a person who can drive a car but doesn’t know the first thing about the mechanical arts.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Note that many theists admit that they (cheerily) believe themselves slaves.
Edited.[/quote]
The word “slave” has a bad rap with the PC crowd I know but it all depends on what you mean by “slave”.[/quote]
It really doesn’t depend, so far as I’m concerned. For example, these…
[quote]
I think a shepherd and a flock is a better analogy. Or the relationship a dog has with a benevolent master.[/quote]
…get at more or less the same thing, and they are exactly as repulsive to me. That people yearn to be dogs in the service of a benevolent master is truly pathetic in my view. I don’t mean that as an insult. It literally inspires pathos. But then they tend to feel the same about my enormous arrogance, which they think will be duly punished. In which case my point will have been enormously proved.[/quote]
So presumably you have contempt for the trust and affection a dog has for his master then? If you’re so filled with “uncertainty” and listing all the things you don’t know and don’t understand, why is it so contemptible to have faith and trust in a omnibenevolent and omniscient being? I don’t get where you’re coming from.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
So presumably you have contempt for the trust and affection a dog has for his master then? If you’re so filled with “uncertainty” and listing all the things you don’t know and don’t understand, why is it so contemptible to have faith and trust in a omnibenevolent and omniscient being? I don’t get where you’re coming from.[/quote]
Yes: I have pity, not contempt, for the human who yearns to be like the dog, wagging his tail, gazing up at his master with stupid eyes. I have pity for anyone who has ever desired a master at all.
But, again, they usually have pity (or worse) for me, too. And if they’re right about god, their pity is appreciated.
[quote]knee-gro wrote:
Sorry, messed up the link.
Anyway I hope the King of the Netherlands fire this guy. What kind of politician talks like this about people?
[/quote]
Are you Dutch? Just curious.
Definitely it was crass. But he’s probably feeling a lot of heat as a Muslim and a leader in a country where anti-Muslim sentiment is gaining a lot of steam. When many around the world are demanding moderate Muslims to take a stand, he is doing exactly that.
I don’t disagree with the message. He wants other Muslim immigrants to adapt and be successful. When others see positive and consistent contributions from an immigrant group, that group has a far greater likelihood as being accepted and becoming apart of that nation’s fabric. I honestly think he is being crass and sending that message because he cares for the well-being and future trajectory of people like him. The harsh language makes it clear he wasn’t going through the motions to deflect some heat.
I’m a first-gen American. I am very grateful my Dad adapted and assimilated so I could have a normal and happy childhood where I never felt like an outsider. Not only does that achieve personal happiness, it also makes you more productive. Productive people who aren’t pissed off all the time are generally accepted by everyone except the most racist among us.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Yes: I have pity, not contempt, for the human who yearns to be like the dog, wagging his tail, gazing up at his master with stupid eyes.
[/quote]
I think you’re being insulting to dogs now. My dogs have all been intelligent. They didn’t gaze stupidly at me(although I have seen many dogs like this). My cattle dogs in particular were very reserved and aloof, independent; wilful even, highly intelligent and yet very trusting and loyal because of the relationship we developed.
Then you can never understand things like loyalty or how to work under people and so on - take orders. Human relations are always stratified and hierarchical. It’s the nature of things. There is nothing contemptible about subservient relations. A child is subservient to his father; the apprentice to the master; the kohai to the sempai. I just don’t get where this contempt comes from. Indeed, if an omniscient, omnibenevolent being did exist then one would be subservient to Him? Surely?
Edited
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Okay. So that still doesn’t imply that God would be anything other than indifferent. After all, it would be us, or soul that pays the price, not God. [/quote]
I don’t know where you get off calling God indifferent.
The Man busted His Ass for SIX FULL DAYS! No 40 hour week bullshit. Only on the 7th day He allowed Himself a rest.
Just because God has been resting until now and doing nothing but scratching His (Sacred) Balls for millions and millions of years, we’re going to assume He doesn’t give a fuck?
I wouldn’t pass judgement on God before having all the info, I hope you burn in Hell for this.
Maybe he has a mycosis on His Scrotum, or maybe some other cosmic Testicular affliction. We don’t know.
But just cause He be restin’ since then don’t mean He bein’ indifferent, ya feel me, beansie?
[quote]BPCorso wrote:
[quote]knee-gro wrote:
Sorry, messed up the link.
Anyway I hope the King of the Netherlands fire this guy. What kind of politician talks like this about people?
[/quote]
Are you Dutch? Just curious.
Definitely it was crass. But he’s probably feeling a lot of heat as a Muslim and a leader in a country where anti-Muslim sentiment is gaining a lot of steam. When many around the world are demanding moderate Muslims to take a stand, he is doing exactly that.
I don’t disagree with the message. He wants other Muslim immigrants to adapt and be successful. When others see positive and consistent contributions from an immigrant group, that group has a far greater likelihood as being accepted and becoming apart of that nation’s fabric. I honestly think he is being crass and sending that message because he cares for the well-being and future trajectory of people like him. The harsh language makes it clear he wasn’t going through the motions to deflect some heat.
I’m a first-gen American. I am very grateful my Dad adapted and assimilated so I could have a normal and happy childhood where I never felt like an outsider. Not only does that achieve personal happiness, it also makes you more productive. Productive people who aren’t pissed off all the time are generally accepted by everyone except the most racist among us.[/quote]
Nah man I ain’t Dutch. And I agree with everything you posted, actually.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Then you can never understand things like loyalty or how to work under people and so on - take orders. [/quote]
Differences: voluntary/involuntary; ownership/not ownership; total submission/not. Etcetera. My signing a contract with someone which specifies that I shall provide X service in exchange for their money…is not remotely comparable.
[quote]knee-gro wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Okay. So that still doesn’t imply that God would be anything other than indifferent. After all, it would be us, or soul that pays the price, not God. [/quote]
I don’t know where you get off calling God indifferent. [/quote]
I’m not intending to call God indifferent, but in all reality projecting human emotion, feeling and understanding onto an omnipotent being seems really silly. And the context of my post was smh’s questions that was doing that.
I’m not the one assuming here.
I’m not particularly worried about “burning in hell”, and if I do, it won’t be because of my perception here.
Just because the idea God would be indifferent bothers you, doesn’t mean it might not be the case.