Why does God not stop the evil?

[Davian]

I have never defended genocide.

And what is wrong with genocide, if it is not going to preclude one from entering this hypothetical heaven of yours?

Does it even need defending?

 

[quatona]

So you do have a concept of right and wrong.

Yes, that I have a subjective opinion about right/wrong was never in dispute.

You

are saying I should find dishonesty and disingeniousness wrong. Well I am glad you feel that way.

No, I haven´t been saying that. You are putting that into my mouth.

As a subjectivist, however, you cannot make that judgment. Your saying I should think like you think. You are saying I should think that being dishonest is wrong and that being disingenious is wrong.

No, I haven´t said that, and I am not saying it.

Why? Look at what you said:

You see, what you want to say is that it is just your subjective opinion that I am wrong

Yes, and you don´t get to change "subjective" into "objective" by any means of semantics trickery.

and should be honest and genuine.

No, I am saying that I don´t want to be in the company of dishonest and disingenious people.

But you cannot say that. AS SOON AS YOU SAY THAT I HAVE FAILED IN A MORAL OBLIGATION i.e, that I am wrong for doing (x) (y) or (z) you are not being subjective but objective in your appeal.

No, I haven´t said nor meant to say that you are failing in a moral obligation (all caps or not). I am just saying that I don´t want to have do with people who are disingenious and dishonest.

You are pointing me towards a moral obligation and saying: "Elioenai26, you should be (x) and because you are not (x), you are wrong."

No, I am not. You are making that position up for me.

But if everything is simply subjective, or subject to the individual, I must be allowed the right to respond however I think it is beneficial for me to respond.

Yes. Far be it from me to even only try to prevent you from responding however you wish. Have you seen any attempt from me of silencing you?

You can't pass judgment on me, because there is nothing for you to appeal to that can adjudicate between our two opinions, because there is no standard INDEPENDENT of our two SUBJECTIVE OPINIONS to appeal to. IN YOUR VIEW, THERE IS NO OBJECTIVE MORAL LAW that you can point to and say: "Elioenai26, you know that you SHOULD be honest."

And that´s exactly why I don´t say this. You are making this statement up for me. It´s not a quote, it´s you superimposing your idea of objective morals upon my statement.

That is why it is simple to see that when we are wronged it is in those instances that we affirm objective moral values and duties. You feel wronged because you think someone is being dishonest. As a relativist, you cannot say that.

Of course, as a subjectivist and/or relativist I can talk about my feelings and my subjective opinion.

There is no wrong, there is no right.

But there are subjective opinions.

Everything is relative to the individual's perspective.

Yes, and my judgements about right and wrong are knowingly and intentionally made from this individual´s perspective.

That is why you cannot be a relativist.

I can dislike, despise and be abhorred by your dishonesty quite fine - as a relativist and as a subjectivist. And I can verbalize my subjective feelings quite fine, as well.

When you say:

"Since in your subjective morality you don´t find anything wrong with that, there can´t be a fruitful discussion between you and me."

You just said in the above that since in my view, I do not find anything wrong with being dishonest, there cant be a fruitful discussion between you and me.

That is the same as saying that: "Elioenai26, your subjective morality should tell you being dishonest is wrong."

No, it is not the same thing. Your subjective morality tells you what it tells you, and you are free to act upon your subjective morality all you like, just as I am. What I am telling you is that I am not enjoying the company of dishonest people, and that I will act upon this my discontent. I dont trust you, I don´t take you seriously, I have no respect for your conduct here (and just to be clear, all this is just about the online persona you have created here - I don´t know the real life person behind this),and this influences my further willingness to discuss with you in a heavily negative way. I am talking about me - I am not telling you what you should do. I am telling you that just in case you put value in being taken seriously, in being respected, in being trusted by me you better change your ways. If you don´t put any value in that you are free to continue in disingenious ways.

Its saying the same exact thing.

No, it isn´t. I am mererly informing you what I personally, subjectively am not willing to tolerate.

What you are not understanding is that your usage of phrases that imply ideas like: should, wrong, morality, etc. etc. By their nature cannot be subjective. They are objective because you are telling someone else they way they should act.

Nowhere have I told you how you should act. I have only told you that I am not willing to endure a certain behaviour of yours.

This is not something a relativist can do.

Yes, I can. I can give you my personal, subjective opinion about your behaviour all day long. As a subjectivist and/or as a relativist I could even kick you in the teeth for being dishonest. It wouldn´t be in conflict with subjectivism or relativism.
It would, however, be in conflict with my pacifism.

 

[quatona]

Actually it is. Part of the definition of Sociopath is listed below.

Lacking a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.

Now, if someone says to me: "Well, I cannot say raping children is objectively wrong. You see, there is no objective duty that humans are responsible for adhering to regarding respecting the sanctity of a child's life. Because of this, the person who rapes a child is not doing anything objectively wrong. It may be my opinion that he is not doing what is conducive to the well-being of the child, but if the rapist has his reasons, then his reasons make his actions justifiable to him and so since he has his subjective opinion, and I have mine, and that is all there is, then well, I cannot say he is objectively wrong."

See, you made up an entire paragraph of making up what someone might tell you. As soon as someone tells you this, this will be the person you can discuss it with.

Anyone who has that line of reasoning is demonstrating they lack a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.

For not being a sociopath (having a social conscience) it is sufficient to abstain from and abhorr child rape for whatever reason (e.g. because the person values the society they live in and would like to keep it intact) - nothing in the definition requires the person to do it with reference to an objective morality. It says social (not: objective) conscience there for a reason.

You keep talking about being a remorseless liar as if it is wrong to be a remorseless liar.

No, I am talking about lying and not being remorseless about it as if I don´t like this behaviour - to put it mildly.

If that is what you believe, then you believe that pepole should be remorseful and honest. But as soon as you say that, you are no longer a subjectivist, but an objectivist.

Even if I had said this (which I haven´t) the disclaimer "I believe" signifies the statement as my subjective opinion. The fact that you keep ignoring this crucial fact doesn´t change the nature of my statement.
Nothing about saying "I consider this behaviour wrong" implies that I am referring to a supposedly objective standard. The only referent here is me and my subjective feelings.

 

[Elioenai26]

And what is wrong with genocide, if it is not going to preclude one from entering this hypothetical heaven of yours?

Does it even need defending?

Murdering people because they are a certain race is wrong. This is self-evident.

Murder is sin.

Murderers will not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven.

There will be no murderers or genocidal men and women in heaven.

If a person murders someone and later repents and asks God to forgive him on the merits and finished work of Christ at the Cross and cleanse him of his sin and come into his life and lead him and guide him in the way of righteousness, then his sins will be forgiven, and he is justified. That is, when God sees this man, He does not see a murderer, but rather His Son Jesus Christ. For Christ is the propitiation of this man's sins.

Does this mean the man does not have to pay for the consequences of his actions in this life? Of course not. He may very well end up dying by lethal injection or spending the rest of his life in prison. However, this man will not be condemned and eternally separated from God. He is saved. This is the gospel.

King David committed adultery and then had the woman's husband killed in battle. King David suffered tremendously for his sins. But he repented and God forgave him.

 

[Elioenai26]

I am talking about me - I am not telling you what you should do.

quatona, you ARE TALKING ABOUT ME. What do you not understand about that?

How can you miss this?

When you say: "You are dishonest." WHO ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? Are you not talking about me?

Nowhere have I told you how you should act.

You said I was wrong for being dishonest. Do you not remember what you are typing?

These are YOUR WORDS:

Since in your subjective morality you don´t find anything wrong with that, (being dishonest) there can´t be a fruitful discussion between you and me.

Look at what you just said. Your reason for not wanting to talk with me is that you say I do not find anything wrong with being dishonest.

In OTHER WORDS, if I did find something wrong with being dishonest, we could have a fruitful discussion.

IN OTHER words, you think I should be honest when talking with you.

You have a bad habit of not understanding what your statements are ultimately implying.

I have only told you that I am not willing to endure a certain behaviour of yours.

You have also GIVEN A REASON WHY you are not willing to endure a CERTAIN BEHAVIOR OF MINE WHICH YOU THINK IS WRONG.

You think it is wrong for me to not think being dishonest is wrong.

As a relativist quatona you cannot use the word "wrong" in your vocabulary.

 

[keith99]

Well I would except many atheists seem some middle ground between allowing anything (human and natural evil), and killing everyone.

For a start, stop earthquakes and tornadoes, etc. Stop crazy virus', bacteria, and diseases. If a child falls off a cliff, catch them. If someone is hurt, heal them.

As for human evils; why not stop the bullet, or make someones body uncuttable. Make the rapist fall asleep, or lose control of his body.

There would be many creative way to stop the worst evils, which don't involve striking the criminal dead.

And while I claim the Bible never says God is Omnipotent it does claim by example that he could do this kind of thing.

Think Daniel and Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego!

 

[Elioenai26]

Nothing about saying "I consider this behaviour wrong" implies that I am referring to a supposedly objective standard. The only referent here is me and my subjective feelings.

You can never justifiably use the word "'wrong" as a relativist. I think this is what you cannot grasp.

In fact, you cannot even answer this question:

Should I be honest when talking with you?

Any question that has the word "should" in it cannot even be addressed by you.



*****To everyone who thinks that morality is relative, I would like for you to see how quatona addresses the above post.********

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I have never defended genocide.

Not only have you defended it, you have signalled your willingness to participate in atrocities if you believed they were commanded by your God.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You can never justifiably use the word "'wrong" as a relativist. I think this is what you cannot grasp.

In fact, you cannot even answer this question:

Should I be honest when talking with you?

Any question that has the word "should" in it cannot even be addressed by you.



*****To everyone who thinks that morality is relative, I would like for you to see how quatona addresses the above post.********

I think you may be projecting your own peculiar relativism on to others.

Can one be a consistent moral relativist? I suppose that depends on what you mean by 'relativism'. In the previous thread, you made a number of interesting claims that warrant further examination. You claimed that objective morality stems from your morally perfect God and that certain actions (genocide for example) are objectively wrong. When it was revealed to you that the Biblical God commanded actions such as genocide, you attempted to argue that this objectively evil act could be considered 'good' and in keeping with your God's morally perfect character. I asked you whether you would participate in a genocide at the behest of your deity. Your response seemed to indicate that you would indeed commit atrocious acts in loving obedience to your God.

This poses a number of problems for your line of reasoning thus far. If genocide is objectively wrong, then your God's command to commit genocidal acts indicate that he is not worthy of being praised as morally perfect. If, on the other hand, the wrong-ness of genocide depends on whether or not your God commands it, then in what sense does that constitute an objective moral system? Acting morally is then simply defined by obedience, in which case even the most despicable acts might be deemed 'good' if those committing them believe they are complying with a divine directive. Since you refuse to answer any questions pertaining to how we are able to obtain knowledge about the supernatural, there will always remain uncertainty as to whether any 'divine directive' actually stems from the divine. Moral claims thus become reduced to assertions of "God wills it; therefore it is right." Whose God wills what seems to depend on the individual believer and his religion. Moral claims are thus reduced to religious claims or supernatural claims. Is is it any wonder then that some theists insist that persons who do not typically make religious claims (e.g. atheists) are correspondingly unable to make moral claims also?

This is why I think religion doesn't necessarily make men more moral. It does, however, make them believe they are more moral.

 

[Elioenai26]

Not only have you defended it, you have signalled your willingness to participate in atrocities if you believed they were commanded by your God.

I have never defended murdering people because they were of a certain race.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I have never defended murdering people because they were of a certain race.

Except when your God commands it.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

King David committed adultery and then had the woman's husband killed in battle. King David suffered tremendously for his sins. But he repented and God forgave him.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it the child that paid for David's transgressions? Are you suggesting that God made the child suffer, even though it was innocent of wrongdoing, just so that David could learn a moral lesson? The lesson being "Do what I say or I'll hurt those you love."

 

[Elioenai26]

Except when your God commands it.

God commanded people to be murdered because they were of a certain race?

How did you come to that conclusion?

 

[Elioenai26]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it the child that paid for David's transgressions?

If you mean, did the child die, then your answer is yes, the child died.

Are you suggesting that God made the child suffer, even though it was innocent of wrongdoing, just so that David could learn a moral lesson? The lesson being "Do what I say or I'll hurt those you love."

Not at all. Thats you view of it. Quite inaccurate as well.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

God commanded people to be murdered because they were of a certain race?

How did you come to that conclusion?

This isn't the motives argument again, is it? Because we've been through that before.

 

[Elioenai26]

This isn't the motives argument again, is it? Because we've been through that before.

Just asking you to support your claim.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

If you mean, did the child die, then your answer is yes, the child died.



Not at all. Thats you view of it. Quite inaccurate as well.

Inaccurate? Why? Inflicting suffering on someone who is innocent just to teach someone else a lesson sounds sort of... well... sociopathic, right?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Just asking you to support your claim.

You are on record, Elio. I'm not sure what kind of support you think I need to provide.

 

[Elioenai26]

Inaccurate? Why? Inflicting suffering on someone who is innocent just to teach someone else a lesson sounds sort of... well... sociopathic, right?

Who said the child had suffering inflicted upon it?

 

[Elioenai26]

You are on record, Elio. I'm not sure what kind of support you think I need to provide.

This record maybe?