Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Scelly9]

You're keeping score?
That is even worse.

[Loud Whispers]

You're keeping score?
That is even worse.

No, the score is a joke. Usually after a bad argument [for/against/Bill Cosby] God there's checkmate X then
Atheists: X
Christians: X
Which I would admit is probably not good to be seeing in bay12, considering that joke is meant to stir up certain shitstorm on people who don't get the joke.

[Furtuka]

Chi?

[kaijyuu]

From the perspective of an athiest:
That logic being used could be applied to anything, not just religious belief. For example, believing that oranges secretly rule the world from inside Elvis' left nostril. Sure...maybe believing that oranges secretly rule the world from inside Elvis isn't going to hurt you, or cause you spend eternity in a fictitious hell, or anything like that...but saying that it's ok to believe "whatever" is basically silly. Imagine a scientist conducting an experiment and then ignoring the results and thinking it's ok because he's a nice guy. That's not a reasonable way of doing things. You can't ignore fact based on morality

I was under the impression we were talking about God's judgement. So, that we were assuming a "life is a test" scenario. For those circumstances, the original argument holds water.

What you're talking about is assuming God cares about how rational you are. Which isn't something I think I've ever heard before. What does he care if I think Elvis is a space alien, or something ridiculous like that?

From the perspective of a thiest:
You're assuming that "being good" is fundamentally a measure of reality. And ironically, that only makes sense if one has a religious outlook. For example, if there is no afterlife, and we simply cease to exist when we die, then what does it matter whether we are good or bad? Billions of years from now when the human race is gone and our planet has been consumed by the expansion of our sun, there will be nobody left to remember or care or be affected at all whether we were good or bad.

Why would you believe that "being good" has value unless there were some sort of measure for it? If there is no God, if there is no afterlife, then the most logical measure of value would probably be survival. And being "good" is not necessarily an effective survival strategy. Now...you could hypthetically argue that extreme selfishness can be counterproductive in the long run, from the perspective of a species instead of an indiviudal. If we're all backstabbing opportunists, then our species might die. It's practical to be "good to each other" in so far as it promotes over overall survival, since the individual can't survive if the species dies. But...even if you make that argument, it's not an argument in favor of good. It's still the same: survival is the measure of value, not "being good." Either way, being a "good person" is not important, survival is. Placing value on "being good" is fundamentally a religious argument, whether or not one brings God into the equation.

Okay, now HERE is something that I almost take offense to.

If we assume that God exists and he cares about morality, then under the stated conditions, no he will not care about anything other than whether we were "good" or not. See my response above.
If God doesn't exist, then "good" or "bad" only exists as we define it. There is still "good" and "bad"; we don't need some arbitrary authority to define those things. Subjective morality is a thing, and not and irrelevant or discredited thing. So we can still be "good," but there won't be some holy reward at the end. Under my definitions of "good" one wouldn't need a reward anyway.

[Phantom of The Library]

Either way, being a "good person" is not important, survival is. Placing value on "being good" is fundamentally a religious argument, whether or not one brings God into the equation.

Wrong.

One can be good to one's fellow man/women/animals without believing that they will be rewarded for it.  Some people go out and help others simply because they believe that helping other's is the right thing to do.  Religion or lack thereof is not the sole determiner of ethics. 

I myself place value on doing what I can to help others out for no religious motive whatsoever.  Frankly, I don't care whether or not my actions are viewed and judged by some higher being, whether or not one exists is another matter, I simply do it in hopes of improving mankind.  If one person helps out another, there is a chance, however small, that someone will be inspired by that and help others themselves, this in turn has the same chance.  Slowly, people helping each other out will make the world a better place to live.  It may not happen for thousands of years, but eventually, mankind as a whole will be better for whatever kind actions are made today, either by myself or others.

Yes, I know that this is incredibly naive, but there is a chance, however small, that this naivety may become the truth.  So no, placing value on "being good" is not a "fundamentally religious argument."

[kaijyuu]

it really begins...

Damn. I got caught, didn't I?


Soapboxing. My one weakness.

[LordBucket]

A just god wouldn't allow evil to exist. Evil exists. Therefore god does not.

Once again. The problem of evil is a real thing, and I am sorta offended that you think it is stupid.

The argument is flawed in lots of ways. For example:

1) It blindly assumes a just god. Why? Like kaijyuu says, what if god happens to be a dick?

2) It ignores the fact that if god exists..."justice" would pretty much be defined by that god. By definition. It doesn't make sense to assert that god exists...but then use a subjective, personal measure of justice. If god exists, then he's the one making the rules, right? So...what if "the rule" happens to be that "believing in He, Him" is more important than insignificant stuff like killing you petty humans? Using the bible as an example, if you look up the ten commandments, I think you'll find that several of them can basically be summarized as "gimme respect, or else" and "don't bow to any god other than me or I'll punish you, your kids, your grandkids and their kids" is listed a couple of steps above "oh yeah, don't kill people." Again, if there's a god, he's obviously the one making the rules, and it doesn't make sense to apply your own rules to god just because you happen to like them.

3) There are perspectives that reconcile the issue of evil. Obvious example: imagine that god exists, and that "life" is something that souls do voluntarily and temporarily, with temporary memory loss as part of the deal. When you die, you remember all your previous lives, and whether or not you do it again is totally up to you. "Life" becomes very much like a game or a stageplay. Saying that god "wouldn't allow evil" given such an arrangement is like saying that god wouldn't allow Hamlet to suffer, or players to be fragged while playing Halo. Sure, from the perspective of Hamlet, things are probably pretty horrible. But the actor playign Hamlet chose to get on that stage, and god isn't going to pull him off and tell him he's not allowed to play Hamlet, and he's not going to "magic" everything on the stage back to happy and nice. Why should you expect god to "stop evil" in your life?

[Glowcat]

Uh, LordBucket, you're calling stupid what has been removed from context.

The Just God thing is clearly not an argument for/against existence but rather consequence. Likewise, the classic question of evil (Theodicy) specifically covers the existence of an Omnibenevolent, Omnipotent, Omniscient deity. It doesn't blindly assume a just god to make its case but instead addresses the assumption of its existence.

[Cthulhu]

What are we, three pages in and already it's turned into an argument about the merits of some of the arguments?

Here you go, an actual atheist argument that we can all agree is stupid:

"The Bible thinks Pi is 3"  The Bible isn't a math book and a bronze-age bowl isn't perfectly circular.

[Detahramet]

Updating Op...

[Fenrir]

It ignores the fact that if god exists..."justice" would pretty much be defined by that god.

No, it would not. He would certainly have his own moral framework, but it would still be a list of things he very much did not like and for which he felt comfortable and justified in punishing us, not that mysterious “objective” moral standard that has never been adequately explained. It would make as much sense to apply my moral standards to god as it would to apply my moral standards to my neighbor, unless my moral standards include “might makes right,” or something.

I do agree that God could simply not care.

[Loud Whispers]

EDIT2: Please keep in mind that these arguments should be taken too seriously.

Needs another edit

[Detahramet]

Wait... SHIT!
Thanks!

[Cthulhu]

It's not gonna matter how you update the OP.  You're taking a very touchy subject and asking people to post things based on a very subjective metric (I know people who cannot be convinced that the ontological argument is fucking stupid, and will argue for days about it).

Basically, you're going to have people coming in here every few minutes and saying "OH HELL NO, THIS GUY THINGS X IS HILARIOUSLY STUPID, IT'S GO TIME"

[Mictlantecuhtli]

Man, if I haven't seen a stupid idea for a topic before, I've found one now.

*Let's argue, guys.*

Next on Bay12: "Hitler; Right or Wrong?"