So, the Devil came down to Georgia... (Xtians, you're wanted here! Paisley, that means your ugly face too!)
Offline ...Or wherever you happen to live.
He approaches you (let's skip the part where he proves that he's really Satan. He just is, and you just know it, at this point in the hypothetical scenario) bearing crucial news:
You've been had!
He's not really the bad guy. God is. All this time, God's had you convinced of the 'Ten Commandments' and 'Sin' and 'Confessing' so that he'd have the goods on all your fears, desires and dirty secrets when you kick the bucket - so when you follow Jesus up the golden ladder, *BAM!*, he'll have the perfect set-up to have you screaming in agony for all the rest of forever (an awfully long time).
Hell, man - that's the fucking ticket. He *BAMFS!* you into the abyss for a quick look, and mostly, it's a lot like the 6th video down on the far left hand column of this page. Essentially just a lot of lusty indulgence in all of lifes pleasures.
He then *BAMFS!* you back to Earth, and points out all the evidence in the Good Book that God isn't a very swell dude. Finally, he contends that there is no convincing evidence that he himself is so terrible, and the God has unfairly manufactured an adversarial relationship between humans and him in order to deny people a comforting afterlife.
Now what? How would you grill Satan to find-out the truth of the matter? Would you bother grilling him at all?
Oh, and curiously, God remains his mysterious self during the whole affair - and wholly absent (physically, anyway).
CAUTION:
This human being has more accumulated hours playing GI Joes in the bathtub than he has sleeping, owns more polyhedral dice than he does articles of clothing and has invested more money into his personal computer than most people do on their cars.
Communicate at your own risk.
I certainly would. But I gotta tell you, he'd have a tough sell. Just take the notion of "sin" as an example. Not even discussing its origin, not even discussing it as an affront to a deity, he'd have to explain how there is something intrisically wrong with humanity. Why, contrary to the Socratic notion that "who knows the good, does the good", does man time after time botch things up? Why after all this time has Man been unable to perfect himself? Explaining away the fact that something seems to be instrinsically wrong with humanity would take some doing. Then we could move on to the concept of humanity requiring some sort of rule system to guide it, and some mechanism for the accountability of individuals who violate those rules.
A tough sell indeed.
"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II
Hi TT, (please take this with a grain of salt, you know we don't actually believe)
I've seen this kind of thing referenced before, and it does have an interesting point. If you look at the bible what kind of harm does satan actually do? He whispers in a few peoples ears... that's pretty much it.
What kind of harm does God do? Genocide, over and over again. God commits, or orders others to commit, many attrocities in the bible and yet he is supposed to be the good guy. Would you trust a guy who told you to FEAR and love him or else?
Jesus said, "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division." - Luke 12:51
The main obstacle of Peace on Earth is religion.
I think it was Mark Twain who asked why everyone is always saying bad things about the devil when you never get to hear his side of the story. I don't see him giving all kinds of insane rules and such. The devil pretty much leaves you alone.
Science works whether you believe in it or not.
Oh no, it goes beyond 'what harm does he do?'... Look at Job. Satan checks w/God about Job. All the bad things that happen to Job happen directly at God's direction. Satan never acts w/out God's approval.
I've asked this question dozens of times, but no theist, Christian or otherwise, has been able to answer: why should I fear God?
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid
I'd have to listen to God's side of the story, but Satan presents a compelling case. If he is a God with equal power to Yahweh(as this scenario portends), and he gaurantees good times, with no retribution then one would be stupid to not want to go to hell if it is as strippers doing webcam shows(although that would get boring after about a day, hopefully there is more than that).
“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.” Yoda
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QI6bFKvVw6Q
Here's a few versions of sound of a song , Guitar Hero too
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Blue+Oyster+Cult+-+Cities+on+Flame+With+Rock+and+Roll&search_type=
Here's another scenario.
What if Satan really is the ultimate deceiver? All this time, he's tricked God into thinking he is more powerful and the creator of all things, the ultimate delusion. Christ really does have messiah complex.
Then one day the tables are turned. God, Jesus, The holy spirit, angels and all Christians are cast into eternal Hell.
Stop global whining.
I would like to point out that this thread has a starting assumption that God and Satan exist. This kinda negates any Atheists posting any valid views on it. Satanists for sure, but not Atheists.
The point is, as counter-intuitive as it may seem to those who refuse to believe in God (refuse being the key word) what is "good" and what is "bad" can only be defined by His own nature. By default, there's no other standard. What this means is that it is logically impossible for an Atheist to import his own morality into this discussion because it is -by default- an invalid model of ethics in this context because it does not share the starting assumptions of this thread.
Nice try, though.
"Truth is the cry of all, but the game of the few." George Berkeley
"Truth is always strange — stranger than fiction." Lord Byron
Fixing the world, one dumb idea at a time.
Are you quite certain that this is the case? I think it's obvious from the serpent in the story of the fall, that there is an entity with interests opposed to those of God. That this entity remains active in the world today is also pretty obvious to me. That objective evil exists in the world is an indisputable fact, and the Devil (Satan, whatever) is the personification of that evil. It is the Evil One and his minions who whisper in the ears of the priests, priestesses and kings of those peoples of the ancient Middle East who worship Baal and Moloch, gods demanding human sacrifice. Demons masquerading as gods who imposed religious precepts which are positive evils on mankind.
Genocides? No. Nearly all these folks are Semites, so its hardly a racial thing. Nations are certainly destroyed. Indeed so completely that not an individual is supposed to survive. But these wars are fought in defense of objective good, that is the fundamental dignity of the individual human being, as imperfectly as that concept is understood at the time. Further they are fought for the purpose of the survival of the nation of Israel. These nations with idol worship religions certainly place fewer strictures upon their people, the following of the rules of the idols was certainly less demanding. The apostasy of Jews following the religions of idol worship are acts of treason against the theocratice Jewish state and a real threat to its existence.
I loved my father, I still do (even though he's passed). My father had rules by which I was expected to abide. These rules were established for my own good. There were consequences when I violated those rules. I feared my father when he was forced to execute those consequences to correct my aberrant behavior. I both loved and feared my father. I both love and fear my Father.
"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II
Horse shit.
Before we discuss this, I'd like you to demonstrate that you have enough knowledge to make this claim. Please answer the following questions:
1. Explain in one or two paragraphs the different types of symbiosis.
2. Explain in one or two paragraphs the mathematical advantage behind a Tit-for-Tat strategy, as well as the flaws in the strategy, and the models that were subsequently discovered. For bonus points, name any one of the main scientists who invented this field. For more bonus points, tell me what field I'm talking about.
3. Briefly describe the classic Prisoner's Dilemma. What was the primary assumption behind scientists' misinterpretation of initial data in test subjects? What is the evolutionary answer to the dilemma?
4. Explain briefly the concept of "Selfish Genes." Differentiate between genes, individuals, familial groups, and superorganisms from the perspective of a selfish gene.
5. Briefly discuss current evolutionary theory with regard to the evolution of emotions.
6. In one or two sentences, what is the primary effect of emotion with regard to reciprocal altruism in humans?
7. Briefly describe what is known as "The Commitment Model."
Once you've satisfactorily demonstrated that you could pass a first semester test, we can have an actual dialog about whether or not there is such thing as a standard for good and bad.
Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo. -- H. G. Wells
A)Is there? Or is there an entity that acts in opposition to the apparent interests of God? Please demonstrate that 1)the serpent is not God in another guise, 2)the serpent is not acting under the direction of God, as Satan does in the Book of Job. Remember, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
You mean like YHVH initially demanded of Abraham? Or of Christ?
So slaughtering infants, who have no concept of their parents' religion, is necessary in defense of the fundamental dignity of the individual human being? Destroying all of the livestock in a city is necessary?
And really, I'd like to see some evidence that following the rules of idolatrous religions is less demanding than following the Law of Moses. Consider: Socrates' great crime was of not following enough of the gods.
The very concept of 'treason' is actually an affront to the "fundamental dignity of the individual human being", because it puts the claim of the abstract construct, the "State", ahead of the claim of the needs of the individual.
I have never feared my father. I have been afraid of what he might do, but even then, even as a child, I understood that it was not him I feared, but the consequences of my actions. My own decisions caused those things, no differently than if I myself had been holding the leather belt. So again, I ask: Why should I fear God? Why do otherwise mature adults insist that 'the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom'? My actions have consequences. I know this. I know that if I jump off a cliff, I'm going to get hurt. If I do something that is harmful to me, I am going to be harmed. Why should I fear God any more than I should fear gravity?
The fear of the Lord is not the beginning of wisdom. Recognizing the results of our own stupidity is.
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid
Er... Hamby, I think he's referencing the theistic position there, by which 'good' is indeed 'in accordance with the will of God' and 'evil' is 'anything not in accordance with the will of God'.
Of course, given that by the same theistic position, nothing can occur which violates God's will (God's got that plan, remember? 2000 years ago, he knew how and when the world would end. Everything down to how many times Christ would fart was prophecied by Hakim Elijahwan in the Book of Elijahwan... or maybe Shaq, I forget...), it does kind of run into some basic problems...
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid
I did not say Atheism couldn't produce an ethical model.
I said that any ethical model Atheism could produce is irrelevant to this discussion because it doesn't share the starting assumption of the discussion.
"Truth is the cry of all, but the game of the few." George Berkeley
"Truth is always strange — stranger than fiction." Lord Byron
Fixing the world, one dumb idea at a time.
Well, to be precise, atheism can't produce an ethical model. Sociobiology, psychology, philosophy, or some such combination of disciplines can, but I understand your point.
Maybe I'm just being exceptionally dense, but isn't the whole point of the discussion that good and bad cannot have any meaning when they are attached only to the word of a non-natural entity? In other words, if we start with the assumption, then we end up with no way to determine good and bad.
Discussing any ethical model is impossible without stealing from naturalism.
Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo. -- H. G. Wells
... as hypothetical characters.
Talking about Satan makes someone a Satanist? That was a slippery slope.
Oh. I guess we should just stop trying, then. Wait, that's silly. What's wrong with refining the legal system instead? Your way is impractical.
What? So ... any and all countries without the influence of your god are somehow lost to be without a standard of ethics? That's mind-bending.
You've heard of the expression tongue-in-cheek, maybe?
Will: no gyration without funkstification.
^ Hmm. I'll bear that in mind next time I see any incarnation of humor on this thread.
Close, but no. While the application of ethics is only understood to be possible in a natural world like our own, its derivation is impossible given only nature.
Nature is both cruel and non-cruel, so any ethical system derived from nature is either based on what is (which provides absolutely no answers to ethics whatsoever) or is arbitrary in distinguishing cruelty from non-cruelty. There is a third alternative, which is to borrow an ethical model from someone else without attribution, but then it ceases to be an ethical model based only on nature.
So sure you can have an ethical model and be an Atheist, but by definition it must be an arbitrary one: the metaphysics behind Atheism prevent anything else from being a possibility.
"Truth is the cry of all, but the game of the few." George Berkeley
"Truth is always strange — stranger than fiction." Lord Byron
Fixing the world, one dumb idea at a time.
Valient, I've already asked you to verify that you know enough about the biological and evolutionary origins and explanations of morality to have a discussion. I refuse to discuss this with you if you don't even know the basics of what morality is.
All of the questions I asked are really easy. Do you know any of the answers?
Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo. -- H. G. Wells
Me dumb ..... "but by definition it must be an arbitrary one" ~ Valiant ..... and the non-arbitrary one is ?
I could guess ....
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~rasoren/papers/Ambiguitydiscr.pdf
Yes. I know all of them. (OK, almost all. I'm not into the evolutionary biology of emotion.) The problem is that from a metaphysical standpoint it's arbitrary (regardless of it's scientific standing) and from an ethical standpoint, any morality concept based on systems which are in turn based on statistical analysis isn't going to provide ethical "oughts" with any degree of certainty. By the very nature of their derivation the rules will have an indefinite amount of give to them...which only slightly undermines the very concept of a system of ethics having universal applications.
Besides, isn't morality based on statistics just another way of asserting pragmatism?
"Truth is the cry of all, but the game of the few." George Berkeley
"Truth is always strange — stranger than fiction." Lord Byron
Fixing the world, one dumb idea at a time.
How cute. You don't really know the answers at all, do you?
You also can't even humor a tongue-in-cheek scenario, which is just head-shakingly amusing to me.
CAUTION:
This human being has more accumulated hours playing GI Joes in the bathtub than he has sleeping, owns more polyhedral dice than he does articles of clothing and has invested more money into his personal computer than most people do on their cars.
Communicate at your own risk.
Atheists are heaven, Theists are hell .... and give RRS Eloise a new badge ....
OK, for those of us who are exceptionally dense at picking up subtleties, my argument here has nothing to do with if an ethical system can be derived given only nature -that's just part of God's character being everywhere- but rather that the very nature of it's derivation is insufficient to make an ethical model.
"Truth is the cry of all, but the game of the few." George Berkeley
"Truth is always strange — stranger than fiction." Lord Byron
Fixing the world, one dumb idea at a time.
I posted this in another thread (In General Conversations & Humor):
In what way is this an 'insufficient' ethical model?
As a matter of fact, this model is in every way superior to a religious one. Why? It actually has practical application. At best, yours deals with ideals snatched from the AEther, and is without any actual function at all.
CAUTION:
This human being has more accumulated hours playing GI Joes in the bathtub than he has sleeping, owns more polyhedral dice than he does articles of clothing and has invested more money into his personal computer than most people do on their cars.
Communicate at your own risk.
It's "insufficient" for several reasons:
1. You have yet to attach any value to life period, much less human life, so there is no value difference between A and B.
In fact, I will play the devils advocate: because the natural resource consumptions of A is going to be lower, there is good reason to attach a higher value to A. If you don't think anyone has ever done this, check out the Green Party.
2. This model of ethics is entirely based on pragmatic reasoning. In case you haven't figured out why this is bad, ethics is about metaphysical value statements attached to specific objects leading to "oughts" being placed on certain actions. If you assert there is no "metaphysics" then these value statements can no longer be attached, leaving you with objects and no means of assessing their worth.
This is just an attempt to emulate that by saying "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours." Humans (and every other social animal there is) are capable of the latter, but the former is a uniquely human ability. (Saying this is a calculated play on your probable response that humans are animals, which would miss the point.)
3. It doesn't matter where any system of ethics is derived from. By their very nature, ethical models are applied. They are made to be applied. Your statement "this model is in every way superior to a religious one" because of "practical application" is pure nonsense in this regard: every system of ethics has practical implications because the practical implications were the original goal in making the system in the first place.
By the way, EVERY ethical model in the universe asserts it's own superiority to every other one, too. The very reason that you bothered to say this suggests you haven't figured that out yet.
Please, call a spade a spade. This isn't "ethics" it's "statistics based morality." When you understand the distinction you may understand my point, regardless of whether or not you agree.
"Truth is the cry of all, but the game of the few." George Berkeley
"Truth is always strange — stranger than fiction." Lord Byron
Fixing the world, one dumb idea at a time.