The morality of the claim "all loving and all powerful"

Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15436
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
The morality of the claim "all loving and all powerful"

To Caposkia especially, but to other believers as well, in other threads I my tactic is to attack the starting point before you get to any holy book.

The recent shooting in Az which left a 9 year old girl dead, inspired me to post this, but it is also an example of WHY the "all loving" concept and "all powerful" concept is a broken idea, REGARDLESS OF THE NAME OF THIS ALLEGED DEITY,

Here is my challenge. DO NOT SPEAK FOR YOUR ALLEGED GOD, speak for yourself as to what you would do yourself if in a position to stop such an event with the power to do so.

IF YOU...........not your god, not someone elses god, not even your neighbor. IF YOU KNEW you could stop that girl from dying, would you?

JUST ANSWER THAT QUESTION, nothing more, nothing less. Do not tell me what your alleged god would do, or the "mystery" of his alleged "plan". I am asking YOU what you would do yourself.

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Ghost (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:To Caposkia

Brian37 wrote:

To Caposkia especially, but to other believers as well, in other threads I my tactic is to attack the starting point before you get to any holy book.

The recent shooting in Az which left a 9 year old girl dead, inspired me to post this, but it is also an example of WHY the "all loving" concept and "all powerful" concept is a broken idea, REGARDLESS OF THE NAME OF THIS ALLEGED DEITY,

Here is my challenge. DO NOT SPEAK FOR YOUR ALLEGED GOD, speak for yourself as to what you would do yourself if in a position to stop such an event with the power to do so.

IF YOU...........not your god, not someone elses god, not even your neighbor. IF YOU KNEW you could stop that girl from dying, would you?

JUST ANSWER THAT QUESTION, nothing more, nothing less. Do not tell me what your alleged god would do, or the "mystery" of his alleged "plan". I am asking YOU what you would do yourself.

Hahaha.  Your question is so disingenuous.  It's obvious where you are going with this.  Don't ask a question and then tell us that we are not allowed to qualify our answer, as if the purpose of your question is not to prove that God is evil. 

 


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5130
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Not sure that's true, ghost.

 

I'd say Brian is demonstrating that regardless of claims of supernatural plans and acts of god, human moral instinct is immediate, global and correct. As a rule, instinctive human morality is fairly consistent.

Rather than showing god is evil, perhaps Brian is trying to show that you are not. I can say I would try to stop the girl from dying at a risk to my own health as would you and most everyone else here.

In any case, there is no god, so he can't be evil. It's just that the people who made him up were stupid and the people who continue to believe him are intellectually bankrupt.

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15436
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote: I'd

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

I'd say Brian is demonstrating that regardless of claims of supernatural plans and acts of god, human moral instinct is immediate, global and correct. As a rule, instinctive human morality is fairly consistent.

Rather than showing god is evil, perhaps Brian is trying to show that you are not. I can say I would try to stop the girl from dying at a risk to my own health as would you and most everyone else here.

In any case, there is no god, so he can't be evil. It's just that the people who made him up were stupid and the people who continue to believe him are intellectually bankrupt.

NO NO NO NO NO, I was trying to prove that you got peanut butter in my chocolate. But, what you said sounds better.

My silly way of saying "thanks".

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5130
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Chuckle

 

Brian37 wrote:

NO NO NO NO NO, I was trying to prove that you got peanut butter in my chocolate.

 

Regardless of the theist's dislike for the veracity of your original point, you can make a powerful case that supports the notion the concept of the bible god is morally inconsistent, that its commandments are largely self serving and its leadership skills non-existent.

I've often thought that the reason moral messages resonate with us is because humans are intrinsically good, not intrinsically evil. If we were not primarily good the lessons of the bible would be largely meaningless. Pointing enlightened human morality at the notion of god is just what we should do.

On the OP, if the gun had misfired when the shooter had taken aim, this would be described as a miracle. No doubt the parents now feel they are being taught a lesson, or that the lord wanted the child near to him for some opaque reason of his own. This latter is too fraught a thing for me to mess with.

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:To Caposkia

Brian37 wrote:

To Caposkia especially, but to other believers as well, in other threads I my tactic is to attack the starting point before you get to any holy book.

The recent shooting in Az which left a 9 year old girl dead, inspired me to post this, but it is also an example of WHY the "all loving" concept and "all powerful" concept is a broken idea, REGARDLESS OF THE NAME OF THIS ALLEGED DEITY,

Here is my challenge. DO NOT SPEAK FOR YOUR ALLEGED GOD, speak for yourself as to what you would do yourself if in a position to stop such an event with the power to do so.

IF YOU...........not your god, not someone elses god, not even your neighbor. IF YOU KNEW you could stop that girl from dying, would you?

JUST ANSWER THAT QUESTION, nothing more, nothing less. Do not tell me what your alleged god would do, or the "mystery" of his alleged "plan". I am asking YOU what you would do yourself.

If I knew all that was all powerful I'd probably kill 7 billion more talking monkeys just like her... genocide/eugenics program against the human race.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

Brian37 wrote:

NO NO NO NO NO, I was trying to prove that you got peanut butter in my chocolate.

 

Regardless of the theist's dislike for the veracity of your original point, you can make a powerful case that supports the notion the concept of the bible god is morally inconsistent, that its commandments are largely self serving and its leadership skills non-existent.

I've often thought that the reason moral messages resonate with us is because humans are intrinsically good, not intrinsically evil. If we were not primarily good the lessons of the bible would be largely meaningless. Pointing enlightened human morality at the notion of god is just what we should do.

On the OP, if the gun had misfired when the shooter had taken aim, this would be described as a miracle. No doubt the parents now feel they are being taught a lesson, or that the lord wanted the child near to him for some opaque reason of his own. This latter is too fraught a thing for me to mess with.

"Intrinsically good" - I can buy that, if we base our ethical guidelines primarily on the Negative Golden Rule, ie "Do not do to others what you would not wish done to yourself", and similar sentiments, then that assertion becomes a truism.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5130
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Yeah, look.

 

As I was walking to work this morning I was thinking about that post and the nature of morality - which I'm fairly convinced is self-serving - and wondering about the description I used - 'intrinsically good'.

I was thinking along the lines of proactive application of the golden rule - do to others - as being the bedrock of intrinsically good.

I'm not sure which applies best - 'do to others' or 'do not do to others'. Or are they entwined?

I think I need coffee.

 

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


NoMoreCrazyPeople
atheistSuperfan
NoMoreCrazyPeople's picture
Posts: 969
Joined: 2009-10-14
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:To Caposkia

Brian37 wrote:

To Caposkia especially, but to other believers as well, in other threads I my tactic is to attack the starting point before you get to any holy book.

The recent shooting in Az which left a 9 year old girl dead, inspired me to post this, but it is also an example of WHY the "all loving" concept and "all powerful" concept is a broken idea, REGARDLESS OF THE NAME OF THIS ALLEGED DEITY,

Here is my challenge. DO NOT SPEAK FOR YOUR ALLEGED GOD, speak for yourself as to what you would do yourself if in a position to stop such an event with the power to do so.

IF YOU...........not your god, not someone elses god, not even your neighbor. IF YOU KNEW you could stop that girl from dying, would you?

JUST ANSWER THAT QUESTION, nothing more, nothing less. Do not tell me what your alleged god would do, or the "mystery" of his alleged "plan". I am asking YOU what you would do yourself.

Oh Brian,  you know theists won't awnser that without the "ya but we can't understand gods plan" qualifier. 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote: As

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

As I was walking to work this morning I was thinking about that post and the nature of morality - which I'm fairly convinced is self-serving - and wondering about the description I used - 'intrinsically good'.

I was thinking along the lines of proactive application of the golden rule - do to others - as being the bedrock of intrinsically good.

I'm not sure which applies best - 'do to others' or 'do not do to others'. Or are they entwined?

I think I need coffee.

 

I like the negative version, because our positive preferences are more varied from person to person, and it could be quite presumptive to assume someone else will like the same things you do.

The negative version implies more emphasis on minimizing harm, which I think is more fundamental.

They are obviously related, and 'do unto others' can be read to imply a general approach to how we treat others, both in what we do, and avoid doing, to them.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3360
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote: As

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

As I was walking to work this morning I was thinking about that post and the nature of morality - which I'm fairly convinced is self-serving - and wondering about the description I used - 'intrinsically good'.

Although the word 'moral" is a bit of a subjective term that can be interpreted differently by many, I personally define morality in things like altruism, compassion, sympathy and understanding.

Based upon the stuff that I have been reading lately (I realize that my reading knowledge is probably very small in comparison to some of the far better educated members on here) it seems that by nature, we are a social species.

Case in point, would be my own counter culture.

The rugged, outlaw, biker types that I keep company with are generally the type of people that profess a strong dislike for rules, restrictions, and traditional social conventions. But, get a whole group of us together, and an immediate social structure forms.

A motorcycle run can consist of scores of chaotic individualists that come together to form total unity and fierce loyalty.

Point being, I think if we have evolved as a social species, then that is ultimately where morals come from. We ultimately are an inter-dependent type of species so  I think it is perfectly natural that we would be motivated to help one another out. Problem I see with so many moral codes is the need to try and create a one size fits all solution for everyone. That is why I like the negative version of the Golden Rule a bit better, it leaves open the realization that all individuals are going to have different interpretations.

But on the whole, I agree with you about the intrinsic goodness of people.

There are always exceptions, like sociopathic people and such, but I am not aware of any society that is known to be predominantly sociopathic. Nor of any human societies to have evolved in such a way.

Unfortunately, I have encountered a few people (very few thankfully enough, but enough) that seem to have a complete and utter disregard for the feelings of others, the safety of others, the welfare of others, and treat their own families horridly as well as  everyone they come into contact with. Ironically enough, the people that I have met with these attitudes generally seem to also be very destructive towards themselves. 

So I would think that ultimately, morals are a very natural byproduct of humanity. 

Problem I see with religious morals is they operate from the standpoint that humanity is not capable of atruism or compassion without their prescriptive formulas for what we need to do with our lives. Religious morals attempt to keep humans in line through fear motivation and the idea that we as a species have to be dependent upon a god, in order to live productive lives. Religious morals continue to prescribe a medieval set of principles when it comes to things like sexual relations and such.  Ultimately, religion seems to have a very ugly view of humanity.

As much as I would like to see humanity evolve past the god belief. I am pretty aware that if god were to become a thing of the past, there would still be societal problems. But I do think it is pretty self-evident, that theism contributes quite a lot to our current problems.

 

 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5130
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
I see your point.

 

And agree, Bob.

Harley - what you're talking about is exactly what I meant. We are naturally drawn towards groups and once in them practice altruistic behaviour. I'm no sure what the percentage of sociopaths in society is but they are generally loathed wherever they go. The key thing is we are so altruistic we have words for people who don't meet our general social standards of group care - and it's not 'sinner' - it's sociopath or psychopath.

As far as bikers go, I'd say the group connection is even stronger than usual. In Oz bikers all wave on the road and it's considered flat out wrong to ride past a broken bike without stopping, especially out of town, where on a trip bikes will stop to check on you even if all you're doing is trying to realign your tailbone. Humorously, in Oz, because the one percenters don't wave to the civilian riders, civilian harley riders have taken to not waving to jap and euro bikers (not in all cases) in to maintain their level of cool.

Typically silly human tribalism.

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3360
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote: As

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

As far as bikers go, I'd say the group connection is even stronger than usual. In Oz bikers all wave on the road and it's considered flat out wrong to ride past a broken bike without stopping, especially out of town, where on a trip bikes will stop to check on you even if all you're doing is trying to realign your tailbone. Humorously, in Oz, because the one percenters don't wave to the civilian riders, civilian harley riders have taken to not waving to jap and euro bikers (not in all cases) in to maintain their level of cool.

Typically silly human tribalism.

 

Hehehe. The silly tribalism is quite apparent in the culture here. Every "true" biker claims to do all of their own work, ride in the rain and snow, scorn weekend riders and people who trailer their bikes, and is supposed to have a professed dislike for any mainstream attention the culture gets.

It is one aspect of it that I find almost totally ridiculous.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5130
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Hopefully not completely

 

derailing Brian's thread, but talking about tribalism what's with open face helmets at all times with some of the serious H-D guys?

I wear one in summer in town when my speed will be under 60kmph. Any more speed and the full face comes out.

What about in the rain? Who can seriously ride in even light rain at 100 kays an hour wearing an open face no glasses? And what about bugs and pebbles and so on?

I once rode into an owl at night on the Summerland Way at about 120 kays an hour and if I'd not had a full face that impact, right at eye level, would have put me off the bike.

I ask because the other day I saw a group of Nomads at freeway speed, open face helmets, in proper, driving rain.

Personally, I'm unhappy if my undergruts get wet. Being blinded would take all the fun out of it for me.

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
(No subject)


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster

harleysportster wrote:

Hehehe. The silly tribalism is quite apparent in the culture here. Every "true" biker claims to do all of their own work, ride in the rain and snow, scorn weekend riders and people who trailer their bikes, and is supposed to have a professed dislike for any mainstream attention the culture gets.

It is one aspect of it that I find almost totally ridiculous.

Both of you... cry me a tribalistic river already

Every group trying to maintain some level of exclusivity, also needs some basic qualifications for membership. Tell me, do you really think a group called "Hell's Angels" or "Bandidos" is something that's going to be open to everyone?

The way I understand it, there's a level of brotherhood between members of these groups, but I couldn't speak from experience.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3360
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:Both of you...

Kapkao wrote:

Both of you... cry me a tribalistic river already

Every group trying to maintain some level of exclusivity, also needs some basic qualifications for membership. Tell me, do you really think a group called "Hell's Angels" or "Bandidos" is something that's going to be open to everyone?

The way I understand it, there's a level of brotherhood between members of these groups, but I couldn't speak from experience.

I don't think I can really see the Hells Angels or the Bandidos allowing just anyone everyone into their ranks, either . Sorta would defeat the whole purpose of calling oneself a 1%er.

Becoming a member of even most ordinary biker clubs can be difficult.

Earning the right to a 1% patch is a different ballgame, earning the right to wear one of those 1%er club patches like the Bandidos is no easy feat at all.

Bandidos have got a pretty large chapter further to the south of me. Here in this particular state, the dominant club is the Outlaws. Serious dudes to say  the least.

But contrary to what alot of people might think, the chances of getting into some scrape with a club is next to impossible.

People hang out with and mingle with clubs at events all of the time.

The only unforgivable act in the biker world is posing. So long as anyone is straight up about who they are and why they ride, there is never an issue. It's usually when some weekend rider gets a huge amount of liquid courage in his bloodstream and wishes to show off that trouble can follow.

Club members are actually held to a stricter standard on behavior than some people would think. Often times, if someone wearing a club logo is  acting completely out of line, he'll have to answer for that. Wearing a patch is seen as being a representative of your group. Thus if you look bad, they figure your making the rest of them look bad. There is definitely a whole lot more to club life than just partying and hanging out.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno