Rejection of evolution correlates with racism

[2PhiloVoid]

Do you talk like this in public?

Not yet.

 

[TLK Valentine]

You probably don't mean for it to be the case, but from my view, assuming the dogmatic moral position that you imply here is a cop out from having to face, and do, heavy rational lifting. I could be wrong, but it almost sounds like you just want to use a verbal bully-tactic to establish your unknown ethics as beyond the human pale of argument. I'd expect as such from a Platonist, but not from an atheist.

I'm no Atheist.

But if you disagree, then by any and all means -- justify omnicide.

 

[TLK Valentine]

If you can give it a label ("atrocity") to support your feeling on the subject, so can I: "necessary evil."

You can label it "tuna sandwich" if you like -- but you then have to take responsibility for your label.

I can easily explain "atrocity." Can you explain how it was "necessary"?

 

[AV1611VET]

You can label it "tuna sandwich" if you like --

No, thanks. That would be too easy for academia to deal with.

-- but you then have to take responsibility for your label.

That's correct; so I'll use a more DEscriptive term: "necessary evil."

I can easily explain "atrocity."

I'm sure you can: you have all of academia behind you.

Can you explain how it was "necessary"?

Not to your satisfaction.

 

[TLK Valentine]

You know, what's really interesting about the Flood narrative is the apparent motivation.

Consider the following analogy.

Hiding somewhere in Baghdad is the single most dangerous terrorist in human history -- let's call him "General Akboob":

(Anyone else remember the video game "Total Carnage"?)

Anyway, the US, possessing near-unlimited intel, has managed to locate his exact whereabouts at this very moment: 1313 Saddam Hussein Lane.

With the resources of the most powerful nation on Earth available, the president of the United States (forgoing our standard "no assassination" policy) to take this guy out.

Does he:

1. Order a smart-bomb strike so precise, it could fly in through an open bedroom window without breaking the glass,

OR

2. Nuke the entire city?

Any rational, moral person would choose (1.) -- what possible reason would there be for choosing (2.)?

Answer: FEAR.

The only reason to even consider option 2 is if we were so desperate to kill this man -- to insure that he was well and truly DEAD -- that the lives of the 7 million other people living in Baghdad -- all innocent bystanders -- as well as the fallout (both nuclear and political), would be acceptable collateral damage.

Any president who would seriously consider such a strike would be carried out of the Oval Office in a straitjacket.

And yet, God -- with literally infinite intel and resources, so wanted to snuff out the human race, that literally every other living thing on the planet was an acceptable loss. That's not moral or even rational -- it's blind, panicked, FEAR.

Tell me I'm wrong. Then tell me why.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Not to your satisfaction.

Is that the truth, or just an excuse not to try?

Because I'll be honest with you, AV -- I think you got nothing.
Even a failed attempt (in good faith) will satisfy me.

But you won't even try, because I suspect I'm right -- You got nothing.

 

[AV1611VET]

Tell me I'm wrong.

You're wrong.

Then tell me why.

Can I submit a pic and a hypothetical like you did?

Thanks.

Suppose the entire human race -- sans Noah's line -- looked like this:

And lived in extreme pain due to being so mutated?

In addition, they were racked with STDs that would make Woodstock look like Snow White's rose garden.

Get the picture?

Genesis 6:12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm no Atheist.

But if you disagree, then by any and all means -- justify omnicide.

Ah, I see. You're no atheist. You're also no existentialist. You're an ... "agnostic."

I guess that means you're not sure what you just read in my last post.

 

[AV1611VET]

Is that the truth, or just an excuse not to try?

That, in my opinion, is the truth.

TLK Valentine]Because I'll be honest with you, AV -- I think you got nothing.
Even a failed attempt (in good faith) will satisfy me.

That's because the satisfaction you're looking for is something to ridicule, not contemplate.

But you won't even try, because I suspect I'm right -- You got nothing.

I'm getting ready to type a THANKS FOR THE QED here; but I'll wait for your response first.

 

[AV1611VET]

You're an ... "agnostic."

He's an academic, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Bradskii]

You were there?
You saw everything He did, and the order He did it?
No preFlood rapture of any children who hadn't reached the Age of Accountability?

Why would He need to do that? Are you suggesting that God would have thought it immoral to kill children? We can examine scripture to check that theory.

And we're done when you stop posting.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You know, what's really interesting about the Flood narrative is the apparent motivation.

Consider the following analogy.

Hiding somewhere in Baghdad is the single most dangerous terrorist in human history -- let's call him "General Akboob":

(Anyone else remember the video game "Total Carnage"?)

Anyway, the US, possessing near-unlimited intel, has managed to locate his exact whereabouts at this very moment: 1313 Saddam Hussein Lane.

With the resources of the most powerful nation on Earth available, the president of the United States (forgoing our standard "no assassination" policy) to take this guy out.

Does he:

1. Order a smart-bomb strike so precise, it could fly in through an open bedroom window without breaking the glass,

OR

2. Nuke the entire city?

Any rational, moral person would choose (1.) -- what possible reason would there be for choosing (2.)?

Answer: FEAR.

The only reason to even consider option 2 is if we were so desperate to kill this man -- to insure that he was well and truly DEAD -- that the lives of the 7 million other people living in Baghdad -- all innocent bystanders -- as well as the fallout (both nuclear and political), would be acceptable collateral damage.

Any president who would seriously consider such a strike would be carried out of the Oval Office in a straitjacket.

And yet, God -- with literally infinite intel and resources, so wanted to snuff out the human race, that literally every other living thing on the planet was an acceptable loss. That's not moral or even rational -- it's blind, panicked, FEAR.

Tell me I'm wrong. Then tell me why.

Fear? Is this the kind of 'fear' that only agnostics know about?

 

[Bradskii]

I can see how this might be a concern, and I think it's a legitimate one with all of the crazy things that go on in our world. But in offering your evaluation of me, you now have me concerned about you. You say you can't see how an ancient account of a so-called act of “divine omnicide” doesn't actually translate into an across the board directive for any Christian simply to drop what they're doing and go and attempt to do likewise. Really?

So, tell me, Bradskii, how do you think any of us should be making moral justifications? Do you think there are any multivariate levels of social, psychological and/or ethical complexities present that we need to work through in order to discern distinctive nuances that may be at play in our moral deliberations? Or, do you instead think that “morality” is a simple thing to figure out?

At this point, I want to also bring your attention to the fact that a little earlier in this thread, I and a few other posters were originally discussing the essence of the term “genocide,” a term which I think is more readily comprehensible and more common to our historical understanding of our world than is “omnicide.” The semantic difference between these terms being not too dissimilar from that of conceptually comparing things like “The Holocaust” and “Dr. Strangelove.”

I've never really had a problem in discerning between real life and make-believe, or between my own human ethical outlook and a divine one that is clearly encased within the conceptual matrix of an ancient, foreign culture.

Whether fortunately or unfortunately, knowing what “God wants” is a complex thing, even a complicated one. This is peculiarly so where the application of moral tropes from the Bible is concerned, and in this, I think we can both acknowledge that it's those who think Christian moral deliberation is a simple thing who have the most problem in sorting out their emotional penchants for unjustified violence from authentic moral actions.

I also think that some of the social and psychological dynamics at play in the kind of religiously entangled moral discernment you're alluding to is what separates a Saul of Tarsus from a Paul of Damascus ... ... and I'm sure some amount of solid Hermeneutics plays an important part in this as well.

There is a variance when it comes to morality. Not everyone has the exact same viewpoint. Mine is generally based on the golden rule, some degree of empathy and a consideration as to whether harm has been done.

But this discussion is not about a general understanding of morality. It's about treating stories in the bible as being factually accurate. And therefore believing that God drowned the whole planet. Including children. And that it was justified. And if that was justified then anything could be.

So if a person who accepts that story truly believes that God has commanded them to do something horrific, then the fact that it is truly horrific and undoubtedly immoral would be no reason to reject the command. Personal responsibility wouldn't then exist. It would be truly a case of 'I was just following orders'.

That's the mindset of those who take this position. The eminently reasonable argument that 'God wouldn't tell me to fly a plane into a building' no longer exists.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why would He need to do that? Are you suggesting that God would have thought it immoral to kill children? We can examine scripture to check that theory.

Wow.

Either way, God comes out the bad guy, doesn't He?

And you wonder why I'm against academia like I am?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Ah, I see. You're no atheist. You're also no existentialist. You're an ... "agnostic."

I guess that means you're not sure what you just read in my last post.

Whatever -- are you going to justify omnicide, or not?

 

[TLK Valentine]

That's because the satisfaction you're looking for is something to ridicule, not contemplate.

If you give me nothing, I'll just ridicule that.

Being taken seriously is a privilege, not an entitlement.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you give me nothing, I'll just ridicule that.

Being taken seriously is a privilege, not an entitlement.

Well, I gave you something ... so let's see that QED.

I don't have all morning.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Fear? Is this the kind of 'fear' that only agnostics know about?

I asked for two things:
1. Tell me I'm wrong.
2. Tell me why.

You managed to do neither of them, and I thank you for that.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

There is a variance when it comes to morality. Not everyone has the exact same viewpoint. Mine is generally based on the golden rule, some degree of empathy and a consideration as to whether harm has been done.

But this discussion is not about a general understanding of morality. It's about treating stories in the bible as being factually accurate. And therefore believing that God drowned the whole planet. Including children. And that it was justified. And if that was justified then anything could be.

So if a person who accepts that story truly believes that God has commanded them to do something horrific, then the fact that it is truly horrific and undoubtedly immoral would be no reason to reject the command. Personal responsibility wouldn't then exist. It would be truly a case of 'I was just following orders'.

That's the mindset of those who take this position. The eminently reasonable argument that 'God wouldn't tell me to fly a plane into a building' no longer exists.

So, in order for me to attempt to justify the biblical Flood story, I have to treat it as factually accurate?

What if I think the Biblical Flood narrative is a Sacred Oracle written by a human being, but on general accounts only counts as Cosmogony rather than something that, historiographically speaking, doesn't equate to the scientific minded substance of 21st century history writing?

Do I get an extra 15 minutes during which to play on the monkey bars at recess, or am I still expected to spend that 15 minutes puking forth an unneeded "justification"?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Well, I gave you something ... so let's see that QED.

I don't have all morning.

You gave me an excuse.

Thanks for the QED -- God's actions can't be justified in any way except one... and that way proves the OP's point to a T.