Absurd Escapism

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
So if someone threatened to murder your family if you didn't leave them alone, that 'consequence' would not provide adequate justification for you to leave them alone?

Appeal to consequences. As in, argumentum ad consequentiam. As in, a logical fallacy. Look it up.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
I see you have progressed on from torturing babies for fun to someone threatening to murder a person's family.

Why don't your analogies ever involve puppies or chocolate?

Well at least I can say it is universally wrong to torture puppies for fun or drown them in chocolate for that matter. Can you? 😛

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
If you believe in God (as revealed in the Bible) you automatically believe in a universally perfect justice system since a just God who is omniscient can see every intent of the heart and he is the only one that will judge people. There are many examples of this in the Bible and I am surprised that as an ex-Christian you don't already know of all the exa ...[text shortened]... receive the death sentence. How exactly is your idea of 'justice' even remotely close to 'fair'?

God (as revealed in the bible) does not represent a universally perfect justice system.

The bible for example condones slavery and other unspeakable acts. - Haven't you read it?!

Originally posted by LemonJello
Appeal to consequences. As in, argumentum ad consequentiam. As in, a logical fallacy. Look it up.

Aha got you. I don't think people believe in God because they believe in perfect justice. They believe in perfect justice because they believe in God.

Originally posted by LemonJello

The plausible alternative is obvious: our moral faculty evolved, just the same as any of our other faculties. If you don't want to just take its plausibility on my word, read the Joyce book I already recommended in this thread.

Please don't send me off to argue with Joyce right now. You and me.

I have some questions about Evolution about the source of human moral awareness.
I am going to assume a Blind Watchmaker groping along definition of Evolution.

Did mind emerge from matter without the direction of a superior intelligence ?
If so, why should we trust in such a mind ? No one would trust in the printout of a computer which had no intelligent programmer but only random forces of a non-rational nature.

GIGO - "Garbage In - Garbage Out" is the slogan in the IT business. Why should we trust the output of a mind arisen from a garble of garbage chaotic input?

Thinking and moral decisions involve abstract (moral propositions, laws of logic, ethical comparisons, etc.). Were these abstractions out there somewhere in the universe waiting for thinking minds to emerge from earthen dirt, to handle them ?

If so then it seems that some things as transcendent abstractions of a mind and moral nature already existed waiting to be munipulated by a material thing lucky enough to emerge somehow into a thinking entity.

This is more plausible to believe than a God who created human beings in His image ?

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
God (as revealed in the bible) does not represent a universally perfect justice system.

The bible for example condones slavery and other unspeakable acts. - Haven't you read it?!

Firstly, are you saying slavery is universally wrong?

Secondly, by 'condone' you mean promote and say it's good?

LemonJello,

me:

Okay. You appear not to want to throw your lot in with consummate materialists.

LJ:
Why exactly? Because I recognize that it is a very simple error to confuse the content of a mental state with the explanation for that mental state? Earth to sonship: materialism is not committed to making basic notional errors such as this. That you would commit such an error is your problem, not the materialist’s problem.

Come in earth.

You are not or you are a Physicalist ? Does the world have nothing but matter in it ?
If so "Houston, we have a problem."

If not, I'll find one, if you're still an atheist.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Aha got you. I don't think people believe in God because they believe in perfect justice. They believe in perfect justice because they believe in God.

Fine. If that is the case, then it is reasonable to expect that in attempting to justify that belief in God, they ought to be able to point to something other than a lame appeal to consequences regarding perfect justice (or lack thereof).

Originally posted by sonship
LemonJello,

[quote] me:

Okay. You appear not to want to throw your lot in with consummate materialists.

LJ:
Why exactly? Because I recognize that it is a very simple error to confuse the content of a mental state with the explanation for that mental state? Earth to sonship: materialism is not committed to making basic notional errors such as this ...[text shortened]... t ?
If so "Houston, we have a problem."

If not, I'll find one, if you're still an atheist.

I'm going to wait a while to see how many additional posts you add on. Then I'll respond to your salient points in one post again, like last time.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Fine. If that is the case, then it is reasonable to expect that in attempting to justify that belief in God, they ought to be able to point to something other than a lame appeal to consequences regarding perfect justice (or lack thereof).

I don't think people believe in God because of a single reason. "Perfect justice" may be one of a 'million' reasons that add up.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
I don't think people believe in God because of a single reason. "Perfect justice" may be one of a 'million' reasons that add up.

Then I repeat: if that is the case, then it is reasonable to expect that in attempting to justify that belief in God, they ought to be able to point to something other than a lame appeal to consequences regarding perfect justice (or lack thereof).

Originally posted by LemonJello

You just don't seem to be getting it. I'm not claiming that the childishness is a feature of the moral directives to which you subscribe. I'm claiming, rather, that the childishness is a feature of your own thinking and deliberations.

So you're saying the commandments of the God I believe in are not childish.
You are also saying the intuitive sense about some of these laws apart from sacred text, also is not childish.

What is childish is to think Someone bigger than you and I has designed us.
What is childish is to believe that my conscience as a kind of breaking system, holding me back at least, from a ruining moral corruption, could be from a human designing Creator with Himself a moral dimension, is childish.

I don't think so. Now what is possibly childish is a child who hates to acknowledge any gratitude to his parent for anything. He hates to even pronounce the word "Dad". He can think of nothing for which he could thank his father. He would just as soon he didn't ever live.

This could be a bit juvenile I think. In fact it has been pointed out that many prominent Atheists had miserable attitudes about their earthly fathers.

The Psychology of Atheism - Paul C. Vitz, PhD ( A former Atheist )

He says he has great respect for friends who are atheists and is not an atheist "basher". After all he was an atheist for 20 years.

He says "Psychology cuts both ways." And starting with Freud he shows disdain for fathers (The Defective Father Hypothesis) often fuels intellectual atheism.

YouTube

Originally posted by LemonJello
Then I repeat: if that is the case, then it is reasonable to expect that in attempting to justify that belief in God, they ought to be able to point to something other than a lame appeal to consequences regarding perfect justice (or lack thereof).

So what then in your humble opinion would be reasonable justification for belief in God?

Since by saying something does not justify belief in God you are pretending to know exactly what DOES justify belief in God. So please enlighten us.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Firstly, are you saying slavery is universally wrong?

Secondly, by 'condone' you mean promote and say it's good?

I am saying slavery is not conducive to a perfect justice system that you claim the bible supports.

And to your second point, in Genesis 24 God blesses Abraham by giving him lots of slaves. Is that not condoning slavery as acceptable? - Indeed, I don't believe there is a single biblical example of God disapproving of slavery. (And according to Exodus 21 it's okay to beat your slaves; even if they die you won't be punished, just as long as they survive a day or two after the beating).

'if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.'

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
I am saying slavery is not conducive to a perfect justice system that you claim the bible supports.

And to your second point, in Genesis 24 God blesses Abraham by giving him lots of slaves. Is that not condoning slavery as acceptable? - Indeed, I don't believe there is a single biblical example of God disapproving of slavery. (And according to Exo ...[text shortened]... r the beating).

'if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.'

Just to be clear before we move on, is your answer to my first question a yes or a no?