A World without Religion?

[PRmerger]

We’ve already established many groups where the Christian god doesn’t damn people to an eternity of suffering- to them, an eternal torture chamber is not consistent with a loving god.

Yes. Catholicism is part of this group that rejects the idea of a god who damns people to an eternal torture chamber.

You won’t find that wording in a single teaching of the Church.

 

[PRmerger]

Would you agree that the god pictured by Augustine is notably crueler than the one you yourself believe in?

Not at all.

I think the God pictured by St. Augustine is the same God that I believe in.

That he presents pictures of hell in a way that is more literal than I believe is irrelevant.

 

[PRmerger]

Ancients meaning people living a long time ago.

I don’t take any responsibility for what “people living a long time ago” believed.

#notmyproblem

Augustine being an example of the thought of god inflicting suffering, and me simply suspecting that people living before the enlightenment believing that Genesis was literal.

Can you tell me where he posits that Genesis is literal? I’m pretty sure he was the one who said it can’t be literal because the sun wasn’t created until day 4 but day was created on day 1. Or something like that.

Whether or not this became an official proclamation of the church I can’t say.

I can. You should have been able to articulate this, also, as an ex-Catholic.

The Church has never made an “official proclamation” that Genesis is to be taken literally.

 

[PRmerger]

And, for most, I hope the better choice is to find a nicer god that won’t torture those who don’t follow his rules- or possibly no god at all.

I’m still curious as to how you conclude that there is “no god at all” given this discussion.

 

[Bradski]

And when this father says: I used the same method you use. I just came to a different conclusion. In fact, I will borrow your “different strokes” paradigm and just say that I have used a different stroke than you have, Bradksi. After all, there is no right or wrong. Only thinking so makes it so.

What do you then say?

Well, ‘only thinking makes it so’ is not too far from the solution. If there is a dispute about whether something should or should not be done, presumably you personally think about the problem and using all available information and reason, you formulate an argument. If your argument is the better of the two, then you have a solution – ‘this is wrong because…’. You have a solution that any reasonable person would accept. This is how ALL problems are solved. If you can’t give good enough reasons, then the other person has the correct answer. How is this not blazingly obvious?

As a Catholic I say: You have contravened the moral law given by the Moral Lawgiver.

But we have already agreed that you don’t need to invoke a higher authority. Reasonable arguments themselves are sufficient. If you claim ‘contravention of God’s laws’ then what you are saying, not in effect, but in actuality, is that your arguments aren’t sufficient. If that is the case, then you lose. Every time you tell someone that they are contravening laws given by the Moral Lawgiver, you are admitting that your arguments aren’t sufficient in themselves.

And not to belabour the point, but once you bring in God’s Laws you are saying that you cannot possibly be wrong. So we are left with two scenarios:

1. Your arguments are sufficient in themselves, so you are right.
2. Your arguments are not sufficient in themselves, so you invoke God’s Laws and you are right again.

In all matters where you say there is an objective morality, you can never be wrong. Unless, as I keep saying, there is an example of an objective morality with which you disagree.

 

[PRmerger]

Well, ‘only thinking makes it so’ is not too far from the solution.

That’s quite problematic, Brad. That means that the father who thinks he’s being moral for slaying his daughter “makes it so”.

Or, since you’re alluding to it not really being that way, just “kind of”–“not too far”…I’ll amend to it “kind of makes it right” when the father slayed his daughter.

I don’t want to live in a world where it’s “kind of ok” for a dad to kill his daughter because she wants a divorce.

But that’s the world you’ve created.

 

[PRmerger]

You have a solution that any reasonable person would accept. This is how ALL problems are solved. If you can’t give good enough reasons, then the other person has the correct answer. How is this not blazingly obvious?

You have given an eloquent articulation of how each individual discerns right from wrong. And it is a very Catholic articulation.

The problem you keep side-stepping is when someone uses* the very same model which you are using.*…but comes up with a different idea of what’s moral.

You, with your denial of objective morality, can only say: well, that’s right for you, I guess, to kill your daughter. You used your reason, logic, risk/benefit ratio, and came up with your own answer.

Now…IF OBJECTIVE MORALITY EXISTS, then you can tell him: you are wrong.

But if there is no such thing as objective morality, all you can say is, just like you would say to someone who likes mashed turnips, “Different strokes I guess!”

(Imagine how ridiculous it would be to tell someone: you are wrong for liking mashed turnips!.

Not so ridiculous: you are wrong for killing your daughter.

What’s the difference? With the former, there is no right or wrong answer. With the latter, there is a right answer and a wrong answer.)

 

[tonyrey]

Take the current world, as viewed by Catholics. I make one change: The damned now either sleep or spend eternity in some neutral state. I haven’t perfected the world, but I’ve certainly improved it now that I’ve removed the celestial torture chamber.

A celestial torture chamber exists only in your imagination and you would replace it by inflicting your ideas on everyone regardless of what they desire - and only a lunatic would want to sleep forever, live like a zombie forever or disappear forever. In other words you would create an inferno instead of allowing others to shape their own destiny.

 

[Bradski]

I don’t want to live in a world where it’s “kind of ok” for a dad to kill his daughter because she wants a divorce. But that’s the world you’ve created.

Who on earth said it was ‘kind of OK’ to kill a daughter for getting a divorce? It is in no way OK at all. Perhaps you seem to think that if the father can come up with some reasons for killing her, then that grants it some validity. Is that what you are saying? That because it is wrong there can never be a reason he can give for doing it? Which is, if that is indeed what you are implying, bizarre.

The problem you keep side-stepping is when someone uses* the very same model which you are using.*…but comes up with a different idea of what’s moral.

You, with your denial of objective morality, can only say: well, that’s right for you, I guess, to kill your daughter. You used your reason, logic, risk/benefit ratio, and came up with your own answer.

Leave out the ‘only’ and what on earth is wrong with that? The fact that we both disagree with him does not, in any way whatsoever, stop him from having reasons. It is, undoubtedly and without any question whatsoever, the right thing for him to do. Fathers don’t kill children for no reason at all. How you can deny this is beyond me. The fact that he is wrong has no bearing on the fact that he thinks he is right. People who fly planes into buildings do so because they believe they are right. People who commit genocide do so because they think they are right. In neither case is it ‘kind of OK’ simply because they have reasons for doing it.

Now…IF OBJECTIVE MORALITY EXISTS, then you can tell him: you are wrong.

If you have to resort to that, literally admitting that your arguments are not good enough then, as I said before, your arguments have obviously failed.

But if there is no such thing as objective morality, all you can say is, just like you would say to someone who likes mashed turnips, “Different strokes I guess!”

(Imagine how ridiculous it would be to tell someone: you are wrong for liking mashed turnips!.

Not so ridiculous: you are wrong for killing your daughter.

What’s the difference? With the former, there is no right or wrong answer. With the latter, there is a right answer and a wrong answer.)

If you just yell out Objective Morality! and leave it at that, you are saying that no reasons need be given. But surely, even if something is Objectively Wrong, it must be so for some reasons. So articulate them. Tell me why, without mentioning God, Natural Law, the church or anything at all to do with religion, why he should not kill his daughter. Give me your reasons.

If you can do it, there’s no need to mention objectivity at all (it will be wrong for the reasons given - no need to play any trump cards). If you can’t do it, if you can’t give good reasons, then you lose the argument.

 

[Bradski]

…only a lunatic would want to sleep forever, live like a zombie forever or disappear forever.

As opposed to…eternal torment? Hmmm…let me think about that.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

We have, in your view, the capability to suffer eternally. I’m wondering why a good god would even create such a capability.

We are immortal, and so there is no end to our existence. Whether it would be better (more compassionate) that God should annihilate us than send us to immortal torment I don’t know. I don’t know if the souls in hell would rather be annihilated than to suffer the absence of God forever. In any case, the fear of immortal torment should be a spur to desire and achieve immortal joy.

I DARESAY MANY HAVE WEIGHED THE JOYS OF HEAVEN AGAINST THE PAINS OF HELL AND HAVE CHOSEN HEAVEN.

Seems like the only logical choice. Some people are self destructive, but I know that many atheists on their deathbeds do come around.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . it is wrong there can never be a reason he can give for doing it? Which is, if that is indeed what you are implying, bizarre. . . The fact that he is wrong has no bearing on the fact that he thinks he is right. . . If you have to resort to that, literally admitting that your arguments are not good enough then, as I said before, your arguments have obviously failed. If you just yell out Objective Morality! and leave it at that, you are saying that no reasons need be given. But surely, even if something is Objectively Wrong, it must be so for some reasons. . . Give me your reasons. . . If you can’t do it, if you can’t give good reasons, then you lose the argument.

We are all in agreement that such a person would be doing something wrong.
In my world, such acts are called sins because they contravene God’s will which is that we love one another, for starters. The law is for that sole purpose. In this case, the father is committing murder, stealing her life from her, probably acting out of pride.
I could go on, but I am very interested in hearing from you what you think makes such an act wrong. I sincerely am, not trolling or trying to mess with you.

 

[PRmerger]

Who on earth said it was ‘kind of OK’ to kill a daughter for getting a divorce?

That’s what I interpreted you as saying when you proclaimed this: "Well, ‘only thinking makes it so’ is not too far from the solution. ".

“Not too far” = “kind of ok”.

It is in no way OK at all.

Okey dokey. Good.

That means…there IS a right or wrong, independent of what the individual believes it to be.

And you know what that means, right?

That means you believe in…

wait for it…
wait for it…

OBJECTIVE MORALITY.

 

[PRmerger]

The fact that he is wrong has no bearing on the fact that he thinks he is right. People who fly planes into buildings do so because they believe they are right. People who commit genocide do so because they think they are right. In neither case is it ‘kind of OK’ simply because they have reasons for doing it.

#eloquentapologiaforOBJECTIVEMORALITY.

 

[PRmerger]

If you just yell out Objective Morality! and leave it at that, you are saying that no reasons need be given. But surely, even if something is Objectively Wrong, it must be so for some reasons. So articulate them. Tell me why, without mentioning God, Natural Law, the church or anything at all to do with religion, why he should not kill his daughter. Give me your reasons.

If you can do it, there’s no need to mention objectivity at all (it will be wrong for the reasons given - no need to play any trump cards). If you can’t do it, if you can’t give good reasons, then you lose the argument.

So…then…NOT different strokes?

 

[humble_catholic]

And, for most, I hope the better choice is to find a nicer god that won’t torture those who don’t follow his rules- or possibly no god at all.

This is the problem here . How do you define good from a worldview that has no objective moral values . If God is love itself and goodness itself then he alone would be the objective moral law giver , whethere you in your morally relativistic opinion feels he is right subjectively or not .

In other words how can you justify objectively what is right and what is wrong without God .

You use the term nicer God ? Who gets to define what nice objectively is ? Cause that means different things to different people .

 

[humble_catholic]

""Who on earth said it was ‘kind of OK’ to kill a daughter for getting a divorce? It is in no way OK at all. Perhaps you seem to think that if the father can come up with some reasons for killing her, then that grants it some validity. Is that what you are saying? That because it is wrong there can never be a reason he can give for doing it? Which is, if that is indeed what you are implying, bizarre. “”

Your implying that if God doesn’t give you a reason you can fully understand fir every one if his actions that this makes him evil or wrong ?
I’m trying to understand this statement ?
If God who can see all unfold past , present and future doesn’t explain every action of his in a way that you fully can’t understand then he is wrong or evil . You bradski who is a finite being like all of us who can’t see things on a scale that God sees them can presume to judge his goodness or or wrongness ?
It’s like a 2 year old kid going into a candy store and grabbing every piece if candy that is in there after being told not to by his parents 10 times. The kid gets spanked and ends up calling his parents evil and uncaring . Granted this isn’t the same as eternal punishment t but the analogy fits .
I know he is God . I know that he is love itself , that he is morality itself , that he is justice itself . Maybe one day he will reveal all of the answers to us , but I don’t see how we can fully comprehend him now.
Does not the bible say that Gods ways are way above mans ways ?
It’s irrational to believe we can know it all here. We simply aren’t God.
That’s not to say that he doesn’t explain himself on many things because he does .

Who are u bradski to say what is objectively good or objectively evil. In a worldview that views humans as just mindless robots that happened to come together through blind chance and chemical interaction why should evil and good even exist ?
.

If you just yell out Objective Morality! and leave it at that, you are saying that no reasons need be given. But surely, even if something is Objectively Wrong, it must be so for some reasons. So articulate them. Tell me why, without mentioning God, Natural Law, the church or anything at all to do with religion, why he should not kill his daughter. Give me your reasons.

If you can do it, there’s no need to mention objectivity at all (it will be wrong for the reasons given - no need to play any trump cards). If you can’t do it, if you can’t give good reasons, then you lose the argument."""

That’s just it objectively morality can’t be fully explained without a transcendent moral law giver who is morality itself . You can search your heart for the answers as it is said in the bible that God has written his laws into ur heart , but remember that there is another being that operates on this earth and his goal is to try to take you away from the objective moral law giver.

Bradski in your worldview you can’t even explain why helping an old lady across the street is anymore objectively good or evil then a tyrant who kills off a few billion people for population control .

 

[humble_catholic]

-]/-]

That’s what I interpreted you as saying when you proclaimed this: "Well, ‘only thinking makes it so’ is not too far from the solution. ".

“Not too far” = “kind of ok”.

Okey dokey. Good.

That means…there IS a right or wrong, independent of what the individual believes it to be.

And you know what that means, right?

That means you believe in…

wait for it…
wait for it…

OBJECTIVE MORALITY.

 

[Bradski]

Bradski in your worldview you can’t even explain why helping an old lady across the street is anymore objectively good or evil then a tyrant who kills off a few billion people for population control .

Well, you got me there. I’m stumped.

And if you leave in the bits in the square brackets where it says Bradski, right at the start and at the end of what I have said (assuming you have hit the ‘Quote’ button to reply), then my quotes will come up looking like yours did in this post.

And you can copy and paste those square brackets if you want to quote a person more than once.

Like this…

 

[tonyrey]

As opposed to…eternal torment? Hmmm…let me think about that.

I have pointed out that the primitive notion of a celestial torture chamber exists only in misguided people’s imagination.