Needing justification for morality

[juvenissun]

Do you comprehend the humanist manifesto's?

You spell that out, I do think I can understand.
I am a human, I think I do understand human.

 

[DogmaHunter]

No. If your analogy is a valid one, it would be like this:

A mafia boss asked your money and say: Give me your money, or you will never see me again.

It is funny, right? Because you replaced God by the mafia boss, so everything followed is reversed.

So, the right one is this: Obey God, or you will never see God again.

Talk about logic, you are not good at all. Humble yourself.

It's still his choice not to show himself again. Just like it's the mafia's choice to pull the trigger. Both could choose to do otherwise. But they don't.

Your objection to the analogy is thus invalid.

 

[juvenissun]

Yeah, just like you are choosing to burn in islamic hell.

Exactly. Your choice. Do not blame God.

 

[Dave Ellis]

No. If your analogy is a valid one, it would be like this:

A mafia boss asked your money and say: Give me your money, or you will never see me again.

It is funny, right? Because you replaced God by the mafia boss, so everything followed is reversed.

So, the right one is this: Obey God, or you will never see God again.

Talk about logic, you are not good at all. Humble yourself.

You're contradicting your previous posts.

You've asserted that not following god's commands will get you burnt in hell.... so you're lying when you say the situation is give god the money or you won't ever see him again. In actuality, it's give god the money or he'll burn you for the rest of time.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Exactly. Your choice. Do not blame God.

Apparantly you are too dense to even detect obvious sarcasm. Perhaps I should put up a sign next time...

 

[juvenissun]

No I'm not, I hereby choose to not burn for the rest of eternity.


I also did not choose to reject god, I simply do not believe he exists. What you believe or do not believe is not a choice. You can not choose to believe Lord Krishna exists, or Darth Vader. Likewise, you can't choose to believe the sun doesn't exist.

I said your logic is pretty bad. And you do not believe it. Sigh.

 

[juvenissun]

I didn't say it was logical.... I said it was a bizarre perspective.

It is logical. You are welcome to argue on that.

 

[Dave Ellis]

You spell that out, I do think I can understand.
I am a human, I think I do understand human.

No, what he's referring to is the humanist manifesto. Basically it's the document that defines what humanism is.

Here it is: Humanist Manifesto I

 

[juvenissun]

You can't quit if you are owned for life. Your contract never ends.

Any self respecting slave would do whatever he can to escape. Also, comparing soldiers to slaves is nonsense. Being a soldier is a career.

Be a slave can also be a career.
If I have a slave, I would probably consider to send him to get a Ph.D.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I said your logic is pretty bad. And you do not believe it. Sigh.

What's the flaw in my logic then? There's nothing illogical about the section you highlighted, and I explained why that is in the second half of that very post.

So, what's the logical fallacy or mistake in what I wrote?

 

[Dave Ellis]

Be a slave can also be a career.
If I have a slave, I would probably consider to send him to get a Ph.D.

Now I know you're a poe.

 

[juvenissun]

It's still his choice not to show himself again. Just like it's the mafia's choice to pull the trigger. Both could choose to do otherwise. But they don't.

Your objection to the analogy is thus invalid.

If you do not believe in God (reject Him), WHY should God want to show Himself to you?

 

[juvenissun]

No, what he's referring to is the humanist manifesto. Basically it's the document that defines what humanism is.

Here it is: Humanist Manifesto I

I do not need to read it. Why should I? Is there anything wrong with what I said about humanism?

 

[juvenissun]

You're contradicting your previous posts.

You've asserted that not following god's commands will get you burnt in hell.... so you're lying when you say the situation is give god the money or you won't ever see him again. In actuality, it's give god the money or he'll burn you for the rest of time.

No. I did not say that. Actually it is not right.

 

[juvenissun]

What's the flaw in my logic then? There's nothing illogical about the section you highlighted, and I explained why that is in the second half of that very post.

So, what's the logical fallacy or mistake in what I wrote?

If you do not think God exist, you ARE rejecting God.

God,
No God,

Is that clear?

 

[DogmaHunter]

If you do not believe in God (reject Him),

The bolded is self-contradictory. I can only reject X when I FIRST actually believe that X exists - otherwise, there is nothing there to reject in the first place as far as I am concerned.

I've explained this to you many times. Why do you insist on using words that aren't applicable?

WHY should God want to show Himself to you?

Assuming your baseless assertions as a premise: he "loves us" and doesn't want us to be tortured for eternity, which is what will happen if we don't believe he exists.

From this follows that IF that is true, he would have invested interest in actually showing himself to me so that I can be justified in believing he exists.

That is, assuming that an all-powerfull being is incapable of breaking his own arbitrary rules, off course. He COULD just allow me to use my rationality to determine wheter or not I'm justified to believe he exists. And if I'm not justified to do so, being all benevolent as you folks like to claim, he could just judge me on the merrits of my life and the moral value of my decisions and actions.

Which would actually be reasonable. But the god concept YOU believe in is not reasonable. He is either immoral or not all-powerfull. Because he either chooses with intent to enforce arbitrary rules that reward the gullible and punish the rational, or he is literally incapable of changing the rules.

Either way, it's a self-defeating, self-contradicting god concept you have there. It's as immoral as it gets.

You don't believe in a benevolent, just, all-powerfull god.
Instead, your god sounds like a not-all-powerfull, jealous, juvenile, petty, sado-masochistic, scamming child with delusions of grandeur.

I'ld even go as far as to say that IF that god actually existed, you could actually keep your heavenly north-korea. My moral standards do not allow me to worship such a monster.

 

[juvenissun]

The bolded is self-contradictory. I can only reject X when I FIRST actually believe that X exists - otherwise, there is nothing there to reject in the first place as far as I am concerned.

I've explained this to you many times. Why do you insist on using words that aren't applicable?



Assuming your baseless assertions as a premise: he "loves us" and doesn't want us to be tortured for eternity, which is what will happen if we don't believe he exists.

When we talk about God, the concept of God is already presented, like it or not. Otherwise, we do not talk about it.

So, God is the assumption, God is assumed to be there. Do you accept that assumption or not?

If you do, then we can talk about some other thing about God.
If you don't, then you reject that assumption. In other word, you reject God.

---------

God loves you. So, He has already approached you many times. You can read about Him in the Bible. You can hear about Him in the church. You blamed Him about the slavery, God have me to explain the true meaning of slavery to you according to what God says.

You rejected Him, you rejected the Bible. Do not say He did not try.

 

[DogmaHunter]

When we talk about God, the concept of God is already presented, like it or not. Otherwise, we do not talk about it.

This is problematic for multiple reasons. I'll share some.
First, it seems to me that every theist seems to have his own personal working concept of "god". A lot of times, these concepts are in conflict with eachother. This sends mixed signals to the non-believers. If you theists can't even agree on a singular concept / definition, how the hell do you expect us to agree with any single personal concept you present us with?

Secondly, I can perfectly speak about "blopsmorphes" without presenting the concept of what they are.

So, God is the assumption, God is assumed to be there. Do you accept that assumption or not?

I don't make baseless assumptions.
I don't assume gods are real just like you don't assume leprechauns make the sun come up.

If you do, then we can talk about some other thing about God.
If you don't, then you reject that assumption. In other word, you reject God.

No. Rejecting an assumption is not the same as rejecting the subject of that assumption. I can only reject things that are actually real.

You making claims is such a real thing that I can reject.

For example...
I can claim right here, right now that I have a time machine that you can use if, and only if, you first wrap yourself in tin foil for a full month. I can claim that this wrap is required for the machine to work. I can claim that this wrapping creates some kind of field around your cells over the course of a month which is a requirement for the machine to work.

You will not believe this claim. You will reject the CLAIM. You would not be rejecting my "invitation" or my "gift" of time travel - because you don't believe such "gift" exists. You don't believe this machine is real nore that wrapping yourself in tin foil will make the non-existing machine work for some reason.

You reject the "real" thing, which is the claim.
You do not reject the "gift of time travel", which is the subject of my claim.

You would only be rejecting the "gift of time travel" IF you FIRST accept my claim that the machine exists and that wrapping yourself in tin foil will make it work AND you then say "I don't want to travel through time".

I can't explain it any easier then this. But here's a prophecy (pun intended): you will still argue against it, eventhough it's been clearly explained to you why you are wrong.

God loves you. So, He has already approached you many times.

No gods ever approached me ever.

You can read about Him in the Bible

And you can read about another god in the quran. About other and older gods in the bagavad ghita. But these are just books written by humans. No gods are found in books.

You can hear about Him in the church

No. I can hear humans making claims in the church. And these claims will contradict the god-claims of churches of different denominations. I can also hear humans make claims about other gods in temples, monasteries, mosques, etc. You can too.

You blamed Him about the slavery

No. I blame humans for slavery. Because I don't blame anything on things I don't even think are real. Just like I don't reject things that I don't even think are real.

Just how dense are you?

God have me to explain the true meaning of slavery to you according to what God says.

According to what HUMANS say in a human written book. You can claim these are the words of god(s) till you are blue in the face.

You rejected Him, you rejected the Bible. Do not say He did not try.

No. I reject theistic claims. Not the subjects of those claims. If I don't accept the claims, then the subject of the claims are irrelevant.

I could choose to reject god once I accept a god actually exists. I cannot reject what is not there.

If you hand me a non-existing rock as a gift, then I can't "reject" or "accept" your gift. Because there is nothing there to accept or reject.

And if the bible was "god trying", then I can only say that it was a very poor, very bad thought out, lame attempt at making himself known. For starters, if we assume that at least one religion is correct, I'ld consider the Quran before the bible. But in reality, none of these books can be taken seriously objectively.

This is what I mean what self-defeating god concepts. A god who arranges for the bible to be compiled and which is supposed to be representative of him, is simply a really bad comedian. Or an evil dictator.

Just about anything besides a just, benevolent, mercifull, all-knowing and all-powerfull being.
And that is how I know that the bible is nonsense and can't possibly be what you claim it is. A just, all-knowing and all-powerfull god would not rely on text to make himself known because he would realise that this would constitute insufficient reason to rationally believe it. The proof is in the pudding: thousands of other mutually exclusive religions each with their own scripture - which in some cases is even far more sophisticated then your bronze-age book.

 

[Dave Ellis]

If you do not believe in God (reject Him), WHY should God want to show Himself to you?

Because if someone believing in my existence was required to prevent them from being tortured for the rest of eternity, I would have a moral obligation to try to make myself known to that person.

If God exists as defined, then he's all powerful. He would easily have the ability to let me know he's there. So, if he really does exist, then for some reason he's chosen not to reveal himself to me.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I do not need to read it. Why should I? Is there anything wrong with what I said about humanism?

Well, you actually haven't even addressed humanism.