Re: God, UFO's, Top Secrets, Fuku, HAARP, WWIII, Polar shifts, Cancer cure.

[Magorian Aximand]

Absolutely.

 

[Mage246]

So define your terms.

Isn't that exactly what you are refusing to do? 

Does not justify according to you.

According to any system of morality that both reflects what we generally think about when we consider the words "moral" and "immoral" and doesn't devolve into a meaningless, tautological mess.

Not saying that that isn't true, but that's his argument, isn't it? That God wouldn't be held by traditional morals, because he supposedly created everything.

EDIT -

That doesn't mean they didn't create you, ya know. 

Just because they couldn't tailor you to exactly who and what you are, doesn't mean they didn't create you.

If I threw a bunch of bricks into the air and they happened to land in the shape of a house, did I create that house? Nope, a million different variables in my environment did. I was a contributing factor, but not the creator.

But without you to do it, then there would be no house, so if, even indirectly, you still are the creator.

No, because there is no "the" creator in that scenario. There are many little creators, all combining together to form the whole. Smaller role in creation = different rights and responsibilities towards that creation.

 

[Jhnking]

Well then, we think very differently on that regard - I would see the "little tiny creators" more as just contributors, while the one who started the whole thing as the creator.

 

[Magorian Aximand]

So define your terms.

Isn't that exactly what you are refusing to do? 

... no. I've done it many times before, and I'm happy to do it again. But that's irrelevant to the point I'm making now. The point I'm making now is that any system of morality that is coherent, non-circular, and somewhat representative of what most people think of when they consider morality would consider the actions of this god to be evil. I can safely say this because any system that considers his actions acceptable is either not representative of what we think of when we think about morality, or is incoherent.

Since you asked so nicely () here is what I understand the terms morally right and morally wrong to mean. A particular action or choice is moral or right when it somehow promotes happiness, well being, or health, or it somehow minimizes unnecessary harm or suffering or it does both. A particular action or choice is immoral or wrong when it somehow diminishes happiness, well being, or health, or it somehow causes unnecessary harm or suffering, or again, it does both.

So, what about you?

 

[Argeus the Paladin]

So, you think that just because your parents created you, they have the right to keep you locked up in a basement, and torture you daily, until they get bored with you and decide to just kill you? And they can't be blamed for it?

To clarify my point that Mage assumed just now, no, the way God supposedly created the world is different to your parents giving birth to you. In the second case, parents "create" a child (to use that manner of speaking), who is a human just like them, who will grow up to be more or less equal to them in both moral and legal terms, and who, at the end of the day, has reason, thoughts and concerns of their own that as equals parents will eventually have to respect. Meanwhile, God creating Man, according to the scriptures anyway, as a creature thoroughly inferior to Him in all aspect, who might as well not understand His machination and designs, and who, at the end of the day, is utterly insignificant to His level.

A more apt comparison would be if a scientist creates a new species of bacteria for the lulz. Pretty sure he can terminate the specimen if he sees fit, by accident of, heck, just for the lulz.

(I do sound like a religious person here, do I?)

 

[Jhnking]

...Damit. I suck at these things, I have the general idea of what I want to say, but I can't word it right without coming off as just trying to deny everything you say, like, DP for instace. I admit defeat for now. 

 

[Magorian Aximand]

So, what about you?

Don't leave me hanging, now.

 

[Mage246]

I had to devote my efforts to something pressing, I'm afraid. But I'll have a real post in here soon. I'll deal with your arguments tomorrow, when I have time to do it properly. This is a discussion that is important to me, so expect me to continue it when I'm able.

 

[Magorian Aximand]

And I do plan to continue that discussion with AWdeV in private. And wtf? Two of those are from WW games, in which I did make the promised posts.


But ****ing hell Mage, what a red herring. Are you going to define your terms or not?

Edit 25 minutes later: Guess not.

 

[Mad Vader]

I had to devote my efforts to something pressing, I'm afraid. But I'll have a real post in here soon. I'll deal with your arguments tomorrow, when I have time to do it properly. This is a discussion that is important to me, so expect me to continue it when I'm able.

Best non-answer to a sterile debate.
@Magorian: you do sound like a pompous ass sometimes who thinks that winning debates is the pinnacle of human activity. It doesn't change the facts or make the world better, it's ego-tripping.
Let's save some time here and project how this continues.
"Oh, but I never said that."
"No, but you certainly seem to mean it."
"No, prove it or I win."
"QED."

 

[Mage246]

Good, I was starting to think that no one would understand the joke. Sometimes I just like tweaking his nose when he engages in pompous soapboxing.

 

[rebelsquirrell]

His activity doesn't strike me as pompous.  If debate is your turn on, well its your turn on.

 

[Mage246]

Oh? Didn't you notice that he was defining his argument as based on the only valid definition of "moral" and "immoral", with all others being "tautological nonsense"? He was pre-framing the argument so he could be dismissive towards any disagreement, without even going to the trouble of explaining his viewpoint. I've met proselytizing Christians that were less preachy.

 

[Magorian Aximand]

Again, no. There are plenty of definitions that are non tautological, and I'm sure people could come up with definitions that they feel are more accurate and more applicable than the one I provided, but none that would absolve YHWH of his crimes without failing on one account. And I wouldn't just dismiss any system that disagreed with me. I'd demonstrate how it failed in one of those criteria.

And you'll notice that I did explain my viewpoint. And I have a good many times on this subject. It's practically common knowledge here.

The only person who has failed to explain their viewpoint here is you. Use the cop-out you're trying to if you like. I see it for what it is.

 

[Feragorn]

So define your terms.

Isn't that exactly what you are refusing to do? 

Are you not able to disagree with the definition of a contradictory term and yet provide no alternate definition simply because the concept is contradictory (or totally subjective)?

 

[Mage246]

I made up my argument to draw him out and define his terms, so the people he was talking to would have something to argue against. Claiming that his definitions of morality are what most people consider correct was just too silly to pass up.

 

[Magorian Aximand]

Do you think that they're not at least somewhat representative of they way you think of moral and immoral? More to the point, does your system think that causing unnecessary harm and suffering is explicitly moral?

Edit: The point you seem to have missed, Mage, is that one can create a coherent system of morality that is completely backwards to how people generally view what is moral. The only kind of moral system that would say that the actions of YHWH are good (without removing him from the system entirely) would have to be one that valued pointless killing and torture. Clearly, that's not what most of us think.

 

[rebelsquirrell]

How can one determine right and wrong without utilizing pleasure or pain?

 

[Mage246]

Easily, in fact. Maximizing human potential, furthering knowledge, favoring choice or order above all else, etc. There are any number of ideals that can radically alter what one considers to be necessary or unnecessary.

 

[Magorian Aximand]

I'm pretty sure the reason Mage is refusing to define his terms is because he knows it'll demonstrate my point. First, his system will either remove YHWH from the system, and I'll show it to be tautological, or it will be non-tautological and YHWH will be subject to it. Secondly, if it is non-tautological and at least somewhat representative of common human values, I'll show how YHWH would be considered explicitly evil according to it.

Don't miss the edit in my previous post, Mage.