Atheist Discussion Topic: How did you determine your deity is the moral one instead of the devil?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Russell_SA
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Russell_SA said:
I’ve always understood words like, love, beauty, fairness, justice, perfection, etc. are all adjectives. Comparison words that have a reference point. Saying that this deity is the embodiment of these descriptions comes across as an assertion that is no different than saying my friend is the reference point of what all other love is compared to.
Click to expand...
No different? Really?
Let’s appeal to pure reason for a second, since you object to articles of faith.

Here are a couple of simple questions regarding your friend as the reference point of reference points:
  1. Did your friend create himself?
  2. Did your friend cause the universe to be?
  3. Did he cause you to be?
    If your answer to these questions is “no” (I hope it is), then
  4. Why would you think he is the objective reference point of anything?
If he is not, and you are not, then where is that objective reference point?
Clearly it is a different assertion that your friend is the reference point as opposed to a deity. Whether or not you choose to believe in a deity, recognizing a deity makes more sense than asserting your friend as reference point. He is not objectively anything other than a creature like you.

Can you answer these questions without reference to a deity?
 
Russell_SA said:
Everyone is free to make the choice themselves, but the entity dishes out punishment on the people that do not pick it as a reference point. If the people were not convinced that entity is the reference point, then how is it moral to punish those individuals if they made a logical conclusion that they can not see as wrong?
Click to expand...
Are you addressing Catholicism?
:nope:
 
Russell_SA said:
I’ve always understood words like, love, beauty, fairness, justice, perfection, etc. are all adjectives. Comparison words that have a reference point. Saying that this deity is the embodiment of these descriptions comes across as an assertion that is no different than saying my friend is the reference point of what all other love is compared to. But I made a judgement call to pick that reference point using my own moral system. But that is subjective because my friend can fall out of being that reference point because I have standards as to what that reference point must continue to embody. Therefore my own internal moral compass is the reference point. How is it that is not the case for this deity other than it just being the most powerful entity in the room? Anyone can make a proclamation about itself, but if the audience isn’t convinced that is the case, it doesn’t make it so in their understanding and as such is an unjustified claim or assertion.
Click to expand...
Because unlike anything and everything around us, He is self-existent. Love, or “lovely,” etc… isn’t applied to God like an adjective. It’s actually His being. The phrase God is love isn’t the same as saying Paul is loving, or Paul is lovely. The same thing with “righteousness.” For example, one of His actual names is “God our Righteousness.” He is “pure” being that isn’t bound nor defined nor modified by a human description.

Yes, Euthyphro’s dilemma grappled with similar things. When you are asking about audience, the importance for Christians is on the self-audience of God as Trinity. God is One, but there are 3 Persons. The Son witnesses about the Father and the Spirit, the Father about the Spirit and the Son, the Spirit about the Father and the Son. Then add to that the capacity we were given by God to use our brains; perception, logic, etc… Then add to that the Revelation we were given by that very God, in nature, in us, and directly (as we can read in scripture). What we are left with is the evidence that we can trust God, that He is Love, that He is Righteousness.
 
Russell_SA said:
Everyone is free to make the choice themselves, but the entity dishes out punishment on the people that do not pick it as a reference point.
Click to expand...
Yes, everyone chooses whether to rob you or not. And failing to recognize the government still makes it robbery.
If the people were not convinced that entity is the reference point, then how is it moral to punish those individuals if they made a logical conclusion that they can not see as wrong?
Click to expand...
Would you accept the “I logically concluded that robbery was OK” defense by the person who robbed you?
 
Russell_SA said:
How are catholics taught to come to believe their deity is the right one, morally, over any other deity and so on.
Click to expand...
Someone already gave the short answer - reason. But I can expound a little. When a convert to Catholicism is an adult, reason is usually the answer. Someone who is raised as a Catholic is taught Catholicism but will ultimately make up their own mind at some point as a young adult through their own reason and conscience. In Catholicism, there is a bit of a gulf between childhood teachings, which are simple, and an adult understanding of complex theological concepts such as written about in Theology of the Body . So, some Catholics leave the Church in young adulthood pulled by material desires and autonomy. Some come back by finding out that the Church is actually more reasonable and practical and wise than they thought it was when they left, and some never get to understand; "For I say to you, many prophets and kings desired to see what you see, but did not see it, and to hear what you hear, but did not hear it.”
Russell_SA said:
How do catholics square the circle of moral practices their deity calls for while they believe those practices to still be immoral.
Click to expand...
Mercy.
 
Russell_SA said:
…How do catholics square the circle of moral practices their deity calls for while they believe those practices to still be immoral.
Click to expand...
And this makes no sense. Unless…
you read the bible as a fundamentalist.

Seems to be a recurring theme in discussions with atheists.
 
goout said:
No different? Really?
Let’s appeal to pure reason for a second, since you object to articles of faith.

Here are a couple of simple questions regarding your friend as the reference point of reference points:
  1. Did your friend create himself?
  2. Did your friend cause the universe to be?
  3. Did he cause you to be?
    If your answer to these questions is “no” (I hope it is), then
  4. Why would you think he is the objective reference point of anything?
If he is not, and you are not, then where is that objective reference point?
Clearly it is a different assertion that your friend is the reference point as opposed to a deity. Whether or not you choose to believe in a deity, recognizing a deity makes more sense than asserting your friend as reference point. He is not objectively anything other than a creature like you.

Can you answer these questions without reference to a deity?
Click to expand...
I don’t see how any of those qualifiers deal with morality, they only appear to deal with the power of that person. So again, this sounds like a might makes right argument for morality.
 
goout said:
And this makes no sense. Unless…
you read the bible as a fundamentalist.

Seems to be a recurring theme in discussions with atheists.
Click to expand...
I’m not talking about specifics, just the idea that someone would find moral fault with their reference point and then still ground their moral judgments to a point that they find immoral. So if that reference point is what they go by for moral answers, even if they themselves feel it is immoral, then they are not being moral agents, only following the rules without applying their conclusions to the decisions. That again is what our pets do, they sit on the couch when we tell them to, even if they don’t know why they should or shouldn’t do that.
 
Kliska said:
Because unlike anything and everything around us, He is self-existent. Love, or “lovely,” etc… isn’t applied to God like an adjective. It’s actually His being. The phrase God is love isn’t the same as saying Paul is loving, or Paul is lovely. The same thing with “righteousness.” For example, one of His actual names is “God our Righteousness.” He is “pure” being that isn’t bound nor defined nor modified by a human description.

Yes, Euthyphro’s dilemma grappled with similar things. When you are asking about audience, the importance for Christians is on the self-audience of God as Trinity. God is One, but there are 3 Persons. The Son witnesses about the Father and the Spirit, the Father about the Spirit and the Son, the Spirit about the Father and the Son. Then add to that the capacity we were given by God to use our brains; perception, logic, etc… Then add to that the Revelation we were given by that very God, in nature, in us, and directly (as we can read in scripture). What we are left with is the evidence that we can trust God, that He is Love, that He is Righteousness.
Click to expand...
I don’t see the link from self existence and all power to those qualities. As I still see it, those qualities are applied only after we’ve been given (name removed by moderator)ut into someone’s character for how they assess situations and their level of understanding of what to do next. Granting someone those qualities as an identity factor about them that is inarguable regardless of their actions is as foreign to me about moral identity as it goes. Each person’s actions and choices always goes into the assessment of that person’s moral description. So they may be moral in some areas and fall short in others. No one is granted a pass regardless of their existence or power. Could you help me understand how that is wrong in this analysis? I really can’t see how that deity gets that type of pass over any other entity.
 
Stephen168 said:
Yes, everyone chooses whether to rob you or not. And failing to recognize the government still makes it robbery.
Would you accept the “I logically concluded that robbery was OK” defense by the person who robbed you?
Click to expand...
We can have that discussion over what is logical to conclude or not. You can be logically correct by limited information and understanding. There’s nothing wrong with that. Such as Object A has 4 truths about it and Object B has the same truths. Therefore A=B. However, after reexamination, we learn that A has 8 truths to it. Originally we were logically correct, but then later had to reexamine that conclusion. There nothing wrong with that process. Governments do that all the time. They used to say slavery was correct, learned it was not, corrected itself, and continued on.
 
RussellSA, have you read C. S. Lewis, particularly his Space Trilogy?
 
Russell_SA said:
How do catholics square the circle of moral practices their deity calls for while they believe those practices to still be immoral.
Click to expand...
A loaded question is a question based on false assumptions: When did you stop beating your wife?
Russell_SA said:
I’m not talking about specifics, just the idea that someone would find moral fault with their reference point and then still ground their moral judgments to a point that they find immoral. So if that reference point is what they go by for moral answers, even if they themselves feel it is immoral, then they are not being moral agents, only following the rules without applying their conclusions to the decisions. That again is what our pets do, they sit on the couch when we tell them to, even if they don’t know why they should or shouldn’t do that.
Click to expand...
I see more false assumptions. Is that why you can’t be specific?
 
1Lord1Faith said:
Someone already gave the short answer - reason. But I can expound a little. When a convert to Catholicism is an adult, reason is usually the answer. Someone who is raised as a Catholic is taught Catholicism but will ultimately make up their own mind at some point as a young adult through their own reason and conscience. In Catholicism, there is a bit of a gulf between childhood teachings, which are simple, and an adult understanding of complex theological concepts such as written about in Theology of the Body . So, some Catholics leave the Church in young adulthood pulled by material desires and autonomy. Some come back by finding out that the Church is actually more reasonable and practical and wise than they thought it was when they left, and some never get to understand; "For I say to you, many prophets and kings desired to see what you see, but did not see it, and to hear what you hear, but did not hear it.”

Mercy.
Click to expand...
Ok, the question goes into the idea of if two entities of power presented themselves, such as the devil and the deity. How would a human be able to tell the difference between the two as to which is the moral one? Not which is the more powerful, but the moral one. How would they make that assertion at the beginning? We do this all the time with two strangers walking up to us, why would that process be any different for these two deities?
 
Russell_SA said:
I’m not talking about specifics, just the idea that someone would find moral fault with their reference point and then still ground their moral judgments to a point that they find immoral.
Click to expand...
That’s contradictory. 🤷
Why would I ground my morality in an immoral being?
Before you cite the barbaric passages of the OT as evidence of an immoral God, think about what fundamentalism is and how Catholicism differs from fundamentalists in reading scripture, among other things.
So if that reference point is what they go by for moral answers, even if they themselves feel it is immoral, then they are not being moral agents, only following the rules without applying their conclusions to the decisions. That again is what our pets do, they sit on the couch when we tell them to, even if they don’t know why they should or shouldn’t do that.
Click to expand...
Straw man.
 
Stephen168 said:
A loaded question is a question based on false assumptions: When did you stop beating your wife?
Click to expand...
I see why “beating your wife?” is a bad question. But why is it the same to not assume that every action the deity takes or requests are always moral actions? I don’t see that as the same and I assume everyone reading this see’s that point as well and understands why that comparison does not work here.
 
Russell_SA said:
We can have that discussion over what is logical to conclude or not. You can be logically correct by limited information and understanding. There’s nothing wrong with that. Such as Object A has 4 truths about it and Object B has the same truths. Therefore A=B. However, after reexamination, we learn that A has 8 truths to it. Originally we were logically correct, but then later had to reexamine that conclusion. There nothing wrong with that process. Governments do that all the time. They used to say slavery was correct, learned it was not, corrected itself, and continued on.
Click to expand...
You didn’t really answer the question. When someone concludes it is logically correct to rob you, are you OK with that? Should they be punished just because the government might disagree?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top