Because, presumably, you believe in an omnipotent God. Such a being doesn’t need to use suffering as a means to accomplish an end as we mere humans do. He can just accomplish the end directly.
If I could teach my children to be decent adults without punishing them, I would do so. Punishing them when I could achieve my ends by other means would simply be sadism. Unfortunately, not being omnipotent I must sometimes resort to inflicting suffering to accomplish a greater good. What’s your God’s excuse?
(BTW, could you stop your annoying practice of reviving this thread every couple of weeks? This argument should have run its natural course back in July.)
Ah, there’s a classic one. You have this mysterious evidence that everyone else in human history has failed to come up with, evidence for the possible existence of something that violates logic and every physical law, but you aren’t going to show it to me. Sure you do, and I have a winged invisible puppy sitting on my shoulder.
No, that would be you. Logic is on my side, the entirety of science is on my side; you have a contradiction filled book of myths written by primitives, and a worldview named religion which has throughout history been relentlessly wrong about any claim it makes. You insist on believing the impossible in the name of the delusional, and on accusing of irrationality anyone who points out there is no Santa Claus and that ranting guys on streetcorners don’t qualify as evidence that he does.
By that logic, there’s likewise no rational reason for religious folks to ever do anything that doesn’t ultimately benefit them; it’s merely that a postulated deity supposedly makes the benefits of killing people and taking their stuff really small and the penalties high.
::shrugs:: If you say so. How, exactly, does that set atheists apart from religious folks?
And it could still look the way it does now with a malevolent creator who’s incomprehensibly more intelligent than us, playing out long-term strategies that will cause harm in ways you and I can’t quite fathom. And wouldn’t the world still look the same if we postulate a largely disinterested creator who doesn’t much give a crap about us either way? Or if we postulate that our world results from a whole pantheon of deities plugging away, each operating in accord with his or her own motivations and concerns in ways that defy understanding?
Ah, there’s a classic one. You have this mysterious evidence that everyone else in human history has failed to come up with, evidence for the possible existence of something that violates logic and every physical law, but you aren’t going to show it to me.
I don’t have to, The Other Waldo Pepper will do it for me. Just like I’ve been saying all along, other atheists admit it’s possible, admit that their belief can not be proven and theism can not be disproven.
Notice how he doesn’t deny the possibility of deities?
I am going to tell you what I find very, no, let’s say extremely telling about this exchange:
I said I was going to blow your argument on logic out of the water, and that you were going to think you were sailing blithely on… Now, you’ve done that, but that doesn’t give any indication of which of us is correct here. What does give that indication is this…
If I had failed to completely destroy your argument, the other atheists here should have jumped down my throat about it. If my logic was that flawed, they would have had any number of things they could say about it. And what have I heard back? Just crickets, the wind, and the tumbleweeds rolling by. Not word one.
And now, I’m going to stop responding to you in this thread, since it’s pointless. Nothing I say will get through to you, and your compatriots don’t have the integrity to let you know when you’re mistaken.
“Less pain, suffering, and misery is good” was not chosen by necessity, or reason. It could be argued it was chosen by principle; but the problem with that is that that is the principle. They would be using it to chose itself, and as I’ve been pointing out all along, they chose that principle by their own whim. Of course I know what arbitrarily means. The debate is about how they chose their principle, and they can’t show me any logic or necessity behind it; so, I have to call it arbitrary.
Back in July I broke my collarbone and spent almost 8 weeks laid up. Are you telling me that breaking my collarbone was the “natural course” of this thread, and I was finished then? Are you trying to suggest to me what threads I should and shouldn’t post to, or when I should and shouldn’t do it? If you want to dictate something to the universe instead, I wouldn’t mind if you told it not to break my collarbone again. I usually have only a couple days a week to post, and sometimes I don’t even have that. If you want to dictate my availability to the universe, make sure you tell it that I still have to make a living.
Or, you could simply stop reading a thread you find annoying, rather than telling someone else when they have nothing left to post.
Do I need to point out that about the only way Der Trihs could be right at this point is if he is the best logical thinker in this thread, and the others knew they were so far out of his league they really couldn’t comment in any meaningful way. And I don’t buy that at all. My read on it is that they are better logical thinkers than he is, and already knew who was right on this one…
Word, Superfluous Parentheses. ITR champion, your reading of history is always puzzlingly narrow, as if you were mining it for a specific sound bite and not looking at the full story. History hasn’t taught those of us who are paying attention that secularism always leads to disaster.
That’s a terrible example, which mostly undermines your thesis. The decision-makers in America who wanted slavery were largely devout protestant Christians (Presbyterians among others) who paid no attention to what the Pope said because of religious conflict. When the Founders codified the United States, they compromised with these highly religious, Christian slaveholders to avoid a disaster. Eventually abolitionist agitation (which I believe was morally correct, but am compelled to point out, led to war) with a strong (but competing) religious component provoked the disaster anyway, and 600,000 people were killed sorting out the slavery issue once and for all.
That’s terrific, except for the part where I’m not an atheist.
Of course I don’t deny the possibility; I’m not an atheist.
I also notice that you don’t deny the argument you quoted. You don’t seem to address it, even.
Well, you’re not going to hear word one from me as an atheist, since I’m not one. You are going to come across the bit you just copy-and-pasted, though.
And what principle do you use when choosing first principles?
If I could teach my children to be decent adults without punishing them, I would do so. Punishing them when I could achieve my ends by other means would simply be sadism
[QUOTE]
We weren’t even talking about punishment here. We were talking about limits and natural consequences. When a ten year old asks to drive the car, and you say “no,” that isn’t punishment. When your five year old demands cake and ice cream for breakfast and you say “no,” that isn’t punishment. Those are simply limits. And yet, the child may cause him/herself to suffer because it isn’t to their expectation.
Growth is a difficult process. Most people don’t bother to better themselves unless it’s painful to do otherwise. Advancement is won through hard effort. Who values something unless they work for it? Something gained without effort is quickly neglected. Who would value eternity without first knowing mortality? Who would value perfection without striving for it?
That’s part of the lesson of Lucifer. A being created immortal and perfect, who took that status for granted, and felt entitled. Just like humans who get something for nothing. When a child works for something they aren’t going to be quite able to achieve, but you priase them on what they did accomplish towards their goial and make up the difference, they feel proper pride in their effort, affirmed in your acknowledgement of their effort, and gratitude in your gift. Like children, you’re demanding what you aren’t willing to work for. You’re literally claiming that having to work toward a goal with even some of your own effort is evil. What childishness. [Whine]“But, it’s too hard.”[/Whine] I heard that from a ten year old just the other day, and I didn’t give her what she demanded either. She is old enough to learn that you don’t value anything without making an effort, and so are you. The greater the reward the more effort you should be willing to put in to achieve it.
And what sense of accomplishment would there be for creating perfect automatons? “I know it’s going to turn left at this intersection because I programmed it to do that. It can do nothing else… (yawn.)” How boring for an omnipotent being. It will never be a friend or colleague because it has no will of it’s own.
So, that being would most likely want to create thinking beings. And that thinking creation would have to strive with much effort to value whatever position they will eventually hold. (And that’s just doing it as a thought experiment.)
Secular ethics always runs into the issue that the best result for you is if everyone else follows the rules and you get to do what you want. Theists end up using the same principle, but, by setting their goals and perpectives on something beyond this mortal coil, they can, (not always do, but can,) come to the conclusion that loving others and being concerned for the welfare of everyone is always in their best interest. But, it’s often tough now, and you have to sacrifice things that would be a better outcome for you now. And that is a conclusion that Atheists can never logically come to.
They try to convince others that they can make an ethic that is the same as everyone else, but you can’t get past certain facts: Everyone else following the rules makes a situation where they won’t use your suffering for their benefit, and that is good for you. But, you can always come up with a situation where it would be better for you in this life not to follow the rules, because the rules always restrict your actions.
Now, to get everyone to follow the rules, they have to try and convince everyone else that following the rules is the best course of action, even when it isn’t, so the only recourse is to lie. Perfectly logical thinking and a perfectly logical action based on that. (I’m not saying everyone touting secular ethics is lying, I’m saying they’ve been lied to and bought it.)
It’s already been shown to you exactly how it can be arrived at from both *necessity *(I would describe hardwired biological drives like pain avoidance and empathy as necessity) and *reason *(I would describe extrapolating from one’s own responses to society as a whole as reason, even if unconscious), never mind principle. That you refuse to accept this is your own failing, not that of logic.
Hold on a moment; you’re glossing over what I take to be the key component of this debate.
As far as I can tell, you’re now backtracking from that drumbeat at a speed so breakneck that no mixed metaphor can possibly keep up. You now seem to be saying theists and atheists are equally arbitrary in picking a guiding principle – and, in fact, pick the same principle.
If so, I fail to see why you figure either side is justified when it comes to saying one aim is better than another (or choosing a goal, or picking an objective, or whichever of the myriad ways you phrase it). The way you’re now putting it, what sets theists apart is that – despite being exactly as selfish as atheists – they merely happen to possibly face a factual situation in which pure selfishness leads to commendable results (unless their deity commands them to do less-than-commendable actions: killing homosexuals, killing folks who work on the sabbath, killing heretics, that sort of thing.)
Again, I think you’re glossing waaaaaay too quickly over the vitally important point: really fold that first part into the second for a moment. Imagine you’re the deceptive atheist in question; keep figuring your only recourse is to lie, but specify for me: what rules, exactly, would you “try and convince everyone else” to follow? (I know, I know: for the sake of argument you’re only playing lip service to 'em, such that you’ll engage in hypocrisy should the right circumstances ever happen to pop up, which may or may not happen. But first spell out what stuff you’d suggest publicly.)
As a follow-up, explain whether a really terrific lie for someone who’d like “to try and convince everyone else that following the rules is the best course of action, even when it isn’t” would involve making up a bunch of stuff and calling it a religion.
Oh, you had it. You absolutely had it then seem to have lost it again.
You came up with this before I said it. Can you tell me why it’s not arbitrary, no backtracking required?
Hints
you said, “and, in fact, pick the same principle.” how is it they have picked the same principle?
Why were you able to decide that theists would pick the same principle?
Answer
You reasoned it out. That principle is reasonable. But it doesn’t get the atheist to the same place as the theist. The principles that do that are picked arbitrarily. Like the one Mr. Dibble is debating with me.
Possibly as selfish. I’m sure some theists pick it for selfish reasons. However, the principles of Christianity and Judaism at least, say that if your heart isn’t in it what you’re doing is meaningless.
picking “Less pain, suffering and misery for me” as good is certainly biological necessity. Empathy as biological necessity barely ever extends past your own tribe/village/community. Looking at society as a whole should show you that following the rules, ((as a purely secular exercise,) most often leads to being less wealthy, less healthy, less happy than people who sometimes flaunt the rules or ignore empathy to get what they want. (the only point that’s even remotely debatable is the last one, happiness.)
See, you’re still thinking. That’s exactly what I was about to propose as one possibility. Making up a religion, or hijacking one is a great way to get others to follow the rules and benefit from them yourself. The other great lie is telling people that secular ethics gets you to the same place and leaving out the bit about ignoring the rules when it benefits you.
All I’m really shooting for, here, is to analyze your thoughts on the matter. You wrote the following: “Secular ethics always runs into the issue that the best result for you is if everyone else follows the rules and you get to do what you want. Theists end up using the same principle”.
As for me, I’m quite happy to figure plenty of theists don’t end up using the same principle; I’m likewise quite happy to figure plenty of atheists don’t use that principle either. But so long as you want to flatly state that atheists and theists end up using the same principle, I’m happy to grant it for the sake of argument; after all, it’s your position I want to understand.
Again, you’re the one saying that such principles are picked arbitrarily; never mind what my position is on the matter, I’m merely curious as to why you figure the alleged arbitrariness is relevant. I’m merely asking whether you figure atheists and theists are both picking their principles arbitrarily. If you figure they are, then it doesn’t seem relevant in a discussion of theism-v-atheism; it presumably cancels out by dint of applying to both sides. If you figure only one side is picking arbitrarily, then, by all means, supply the debate.
No, I can’t – because I was doing my best to extrapolate your position, observing that the same criticisms you level at atheists would equally count against theists: you claimed there’s no rational reason for atheists to do stuff unless they’re seeking personal benefit, and I merely wanted to point out that the same logic would apply to theists.
And I don’t want to backtrack from that a bit; I believe your position is that atheists make their decisions arbitrarily, and I believe an honest examination of that position would commit you to add that – by the same logic – theists are equally arbitrary. It’s a matter of profound indifference to me whether you (a) abandon your position with regard to the arbitrariness of atheists’ decisions or (b) grant that theists are equally arbitrary in their decisions.
That’s why the bit you just quoted starts off with reference to what I’d just quoted: “By that logic…” I’m not supplying my own; I’m merely applying yours.
Then you should have phrased it better. Again: “Secular ethics always runs into the issue that the best result for you is if everyone else follows the rules and you get to do what you want. Theists end up using the same principle”. If you no longer want to make that blanket claim, then rephrase it definitively: are only some theists using the same principle as the atheists, such that some are using a different principle? Spell out the specific principles you have in mind.
Again, I need more specificity from you on this one.
Are you saying that theists likewise merely obey the rules when it benefits them, and would gladly ignore those rules whenever they could thereby benefit – such that it’s merely a question of whether they happen to believe such an occasion won’t occur? Or are you saying that some theists obey the rules regardless of whether they personally benefit?
Is there somewhere I could have known this information before this? Did you post that statement to me previously and I missed it? Is there some reason you needed to state that 3 times as if you’ve told me this before? If I didn’t previously have this information, then it would have sufficed to tell me once. I would have said, “oh, interesting. I would be interested in what you actually believe, but it’s not germane to this argument.”
I needed to state it three times because once wasn’t enough to relay my sentiment without crossing into BBQ pit territory.
The problem is that you didn’t have this information, and blithely assumed it while condescending to Der Trihs. You said that other atheists will do the work for you by admitting something you’ve been saying all along – by which you meant you’d cite a Jew without asking whether he’s an atheist. You have the audacity to quote my questions to you, without answering or even addressing 'em, solely to mention 'em to Der Trihs when noting that I don’t deny the existence of a deity – on your way to drawing a conclusion by dint of how you heard “not word one” from the other atheists.
If you’re going to make me your go-to atheist three times without checking first, the least I can do is mention three times that you made the wrong assumption; I’d rather be a heck of a lot more insulting about it.