Calilasseia wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Shagz wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:After pointing out that objective morality cannot be defended by making an appeal to the possible unwanted consequences of such a morality not existing;

You should ask your friend if this argument could be used to defend the Eleven Satanic Rules of the Earth.

He's not my friend, just a random Christian who responded to a comment of mine.
Anyway, he'll probably blindly assertr those rules don't promote respect et al because they're not the 10 commandments and not from god. Or something like that.

Indeed, it's a well-documented part of the aetiology - treating their favourite mythological assertions as possessing a special status, just because said mythology happens to give the adherents in question a hard-on. The idea that these assertions are just like any other assertions, and as a corollary, just as dispensable in the absence of independent verification, never once bothers those exhibiting the requisite symptoms. Trouble being, of course, that this malaise is also cross-infecting right-wing politics to an epidemic extent, no doubt because right-wing politicians have a habit of adopting the Seneca view of religion, not as a warning against its malign and corroding effects, but because they seek to make use of it for their own ends. "Prosperity theology" is doubtless a natural outcome of the unholy marriage between religion and corporate business in the USA, and pretty much exhibits the features arising from the influence of corporate business elsewhere - a few mercenary individuals become extremely rich, whilst the rest of us are impoverished.

In the meantime, I'm a little wary of tossing consequentialist ethics into the bin, even if I'm less than delighted at seeing its blatant misuse by individuals such as the one cited above.

Ayn Marx wrote:Consequentialist ethics ( presumably not of the Randian kind?) carries with it one significant problem in common with many other ethical systems. To compare the validity of ethical systems some agreement has to be reached as to what exactly is a desirable outcome. Survival of the human race would appear to be an unarguably positive aim but there are many of a fundamentalist religious persuasion who hold earthly outcomes are insignificant in the light of some form of imagined ‘salvation after death’. It is almost impossible to have anything like a meaningful dialogue with these people. Such wouldn't matter apart from the terrifying fact they’re gaining ever more political power.

Aca wrote:i dont even know what is it that he is trying to say

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Ayn Marx wrote:Consequentialist ethics ( presumably not of the Randian kind?) carries with it one significant problem in common with many other ethical systems. To compare the validity of ethical systems some agreement has to be reached as to what exactly is a desirable outcome. Survival of the human race would appear to be an unarguably positive aim but there are many of a fundamentalist religious persuasion who hold earthly outcomes are insignificant in the light of some form of imagined ‘salvation after death’. It is almost impossible to have anything like a meaningful dialogue with these people. Such wouldn't matter apart from the terrifying fact they’re gaining ever more political power.

Agreed. My question to Cali was about supposedly doing away with consequentialist ethics and I'm wondering who suggested that.

Calilasseia wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Ayn Marx wrote:Consequentialist ethics ( presumably not of the Randian kind?) carries with it one significant problem in common with many other ethical systems. To compare the validity of ethical systems some agreement has to be reached as to what exactly is a desirable outcome. Survival of the human race would appear to be an unarguably positive aim but there are many of a fundamentalist religious persuasion who hold earthly outcomes are insignificant in the light of some form of imagined ‘salvation after death’. It is almost impossible to have anything like a meaningful dialogue with these people. Such wouldn't matter apart from the terrifying fact they’re gaining ever more political power.

Agreed. My question to Cali was about supposedly doing away with consequentialist ethics and I'm wondering who suggested that.

I was somewhat concerned that your attack on the appeal to consequences fallacy might be misinterpreted by the usual suspects.

Of course, this doesn't apply when actions manifestly have consequences, but that's a distinction that the usual suspects, with their usual penchant for anti-rigour, either miss because their heads are full of bubble wrap, or will elide over duplicitously in order to push their various doctrinal agendas. Though one branch of consequentialist ethical thinking attempts to attribute consequences to principles, which potentially opens some cans of worms best left unopened by the unsophisticated.

How so? Logical conclusions can be consistently drawn from an actual creationist presupposition, unlike chaos, chance or "nothing"; and therefore, science can be used successfully and so there exists the precondition of intelligence. The world and the universe and science itself are logical and possible because they were designed that way and so it is both consistent and reasonable that we should expect to make sense of them scientifically. Why should we expect the same from a zero cause presupposition of random chance or nothing having self arranged or created it?

We can't hear this enough!

For god so loved the world that he punished the whole of humanity for a crime their ancestors could not understand and rather than simply forgiving them, he had to come down to earth and have himself tortured and killed to create a loophole for a punishment he created himself.

"Could not understand"

^ nope.

"Couldn't just forgive them"

^ doesn't understand much of Christianity at this point.

Got anything else kid?

Thomas Eshuis are you blaming God for the shortcomings of mankind? Adam and Eve couldn't follow one simple rule and humans devised the torture that Jesus had to endure to free us from the mess we made. Wow! You need to rethink your rant.

Aww how cute Thomas is like a little three-year-old instead of actually answering a question he just repeats what you said LOL how precious!

Another childish atheist troll. Have you finished your Cocoa Puffs Thomas ?

Leave the room so the adults can talk.

Once again trolls like you come on to these Christians sites dissing on God and people's beliefs.

You are so immature that when a Christian does try to reason with you and want to have a mature conversation all you do is repeat back what they said like a three-year-old.

So maybe when you want to grow up and actually have a mature conversation and actually be open to something maybe you can get a real response back.

Maybe people like you shouldn't be on sites like this because all you want to do is try to cause problems and down others shame on you for your post.

Well you're not making sense because you are the one who posted on this site that is your name so you really need to take responsibility for your actions instead of being in denial and trying to defend yourself.
Because your ignorance is showing by your post and yes you are actually coming onto a Christian site and wanting to talk down about God and the Bible so everything in my post to you is correct you just don't want to admit to it. It's a little amusing actually you act like a child lol. I'm done with your post good luck to you because your post is ridiculous and not factual in the slightest it's sad that people like you have nothing better to do. Thomas Eshuis. Bye lol

Friend, any honest discussion comes with the vexing necessity to properly framing the views of those with whom you disagree. It is polite, it demonstrates that despite comprehending the nature of the claims that you have a legitimate “beef” with those claims. You then lay out that beef...whatever they may be.

So, for your edification, let’s visit a few points.

1. “God punished the whole of humanity for a crime their ancestors could not understand...”

A. God established a free will exercise. It was necessary that they could possibly fall away or it could not be “free.” They fell away “freely.” They clearly understood “no” as she expressed the command and comprehended its meaning. Then disobeyed.

B. Without freedom, love is an illusion. God could love us, but we could not love each other or God without free will.

2. “Rather than simply forgive them”

A. God is perfect in Love which is tempered by justice. These are necessary compatible attributes of the greatest conceivable being.

B. To overlook wrongs is a direct assault on God’s nature and makes Him unloving. He forgives your wrongs and Hitler’s wrongs. That is not love it is injustice. Have you thought about these things?

3. “Have himself tortured...to create a loophole.”

A. Maybe you don’t know, but on Christianity God is Tri-personal. One being with three centers of self consciousness. God is by nature Spirit and not embodied so it is not three Gods, it’s one God with three persons. You are not offending Christianity but a Christian cult that embraces the idea you are pronouncing, modalism. Jehovah’s Witnesses are modalists and not Christian.
So, the Father sent the Son, the Son took on a human nature and lived a sinless life by the power of the Spirit. The Son died taking on the punishment of all sin in the place of each person. His payment was infinite because of the infinite dignity of His person. Retributive Justice is taking the place of consequentialism in Justice. Consequentialism was a farce!
The Son was completely just to take the punishment belonging to every man. The Father was completely just to retribute all sin and to do so on the Son.

B. Sure, He created the punishment. Separation from the greatest good in the universe in the place of rebellion. There is no middle ground. You freely love the creator and appropriate Christ’s sacrifice in your place or you pay the penalty of your own rebellion against your maker.

“God is calling all men everywhere to change their mind about sin. For He has appointed a day to judge the world in righteousness by the man He has appointed. He has given evidence to all men by raising Him from the dead.”

Just how do you suppose that such a message survived nearly 300 years of gruesome Roman opposition? Not to mention with the very heart of the message that a man who suffered the double cruelty of scourging and crucifixion (unheard of) then arose from the grave and will return to judge the living and the dead, Rich and poor, weak and powerful?

Shagz wrote:You'd think that if they were truly Christians, they would want to save your soul by patiently debating and converting you. I mean, if they were truly Christian, they would swallow their pride and try to convert everyone, even the trolls. That's the ideal Christian behavior, right? But I think what we see here is the Christian reality: Fuck you if you aren't a believer, stop pestering us with logical questions, gtfo.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Just how do you suppose that such a message survived nearly 300 years of gruesome Roman opposition?

Greyman wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Just how do you suppose that such a message survived nearly 300 years of gruesome Roman opposition?

To be precise, that was a bit over 200 years of intermittent and sporadic mob-lead violence followed by a decade of empire-wide, not-so-rigorously enforced, persecution for being impious and atheistic, after which practice of the religion was legalised since it was considered less a threat to the stability of the empire than the effort to enforce the proscription.

Greyman wrote: Not particularly hard for the message to survive since the persecutions themselves inspired the writting of early apologetics.

The back-and-forth Catholic vs Protestant persecutions were far more gruesome but also ended with "well then, we'll just have to agree to disagree," rather than any loss of message.

Thomas Eshuis, first of all, name one person(other than Jesus) who has never lied. You are guilty many times of doing the same thing you accuse Trump of.

Second, childish troll, will it be Rice Krispies or Cocoa Puffs this morning ? Or maybe you'd like some cinnamon rolls and milk ?

Thomas, "atheism" is a polymorphous word which means that it has multiple meanings. Atheism can mean both "lacking belief in deities" and "without GOD". It is incumbent upon you to understand the context of a word when it has multiple meanings.

Calilasseia wrote:Oh, it's the Turekoids. The religious apologetic version of haemorrhoids.

So, to borrow from Thomas Aquinas and Norman Geisler, let's break down WHO GOD IS.
1. God is PURE ACTUALITY. Meaning He is pure EXISTence with no possibility of change.
He is NECESSARY... He is a Being whose non-EXISTence is impossible.
His ESSENCE (what He is) is EXISTence.
He is non-temporal and ETERNAL... 'I AM'.
I hope I established as best I could in this space, what Christians would call His Sovereignty or what most would call OMNIPRESENCE.
God as the unlimited sustaining Cause of all creation, is wholly present to everything.

2. God is also SIMPLE. He is not composite or divisible. He is perfect in His EXISTence and is wholly and complete.

3. God is also OMNIBENEVOLENT. He is love (based Scripturally John 4:16 as well). God could only ever perfectly will our good.
He cannot will anything other than our good (we often will otherwise).
God is love and gives us the freedom to choose, as we all know, LOVE must be accepted willfully.
Anything else is not love. To willingly refute God is NOT good nor true love, since it separates us from Him.
Think of light vs. dark. Love = Light. Dark = Rebellion or sin.
So, God's SIMPLICITY points to His OMNIBENEVOLENCE... since He cannot be partly good and partly bad, He must be WHOLLY one thing.
He is WHOLLY Good.
So, whatever comes from God, the OMNIBENEVOLENT, OMNIPRESENT, OMNIPOTENT, IMMUTABLE, ETERNAL, PURELY ACTUAL, I AM... is WHOLLY GOOD AND MORAL.
It/He/Commands cannot be anything else.

Now, to say that chocolate pudding or a fire breathing dragon gives morality, is ridiculous because:
1. Pudding has a cause and therefore cannot be eternal, infinite or creator.
2. Dragons would also have a cause as you mentioned because it exists as you 'have one' and therefore cannot fit any of the attributes above.