What Would The Christian Rather See?

[Darth Executor]

Darth,
I know you don't normally do requests but I'd love to see the crusader face in that cartoon as your avatar.
Do it, do it for even a few days.

-Meh Gerbil

I don't normally receive requests either.

[Trout]

I don't normally receive requests either.

Get a room you two. Preferably in another forum.

[stfoskey15]

They might arrive at the same conclusions, but their reasoning will be fundamentally different.


Deontology is incoherent in an atheisic worldview for the simple reason that the concept of intrinsic good is incoherent in an atheisic worldview. Things can be neither good nor evil for the atheist, they simply are. Same with consequentialism. And again with virtue ethics. All of these assume that inherent goodness exists. A theist can account for it. An atheist cannot. The only way an atheist can claim any of these is to quietly borrow Christian ethics, which a lot of atheists do without realizing it.

Moral realism is not an ethical framework in and of itself but a tool for framing ethical debate, so I'm not sure why you listed it.

So, yeah, you really didn't make your point.

According to utilitarianism good is that which produces happiness and bad is that which produces unhappiness. This good and bad are defined by the emotional effects of a given action. And since we all want to feel "happy" in our own way, that is what we should work to achieve. We need to treat others with respect and decency because that is a necessity for society to function well, and it improves net happiness. Such a philosophy can function with or without the existence of a god.

[Starlight]

According to utilitarianism good is that which produces happiness and bad is that which produces unhappiness. This good and bad are defined by the emotional effects of a given action.

I totally agree with you that MM is wrong and that most atheists (myself included) believe in intrinsic good and in some sort of version of utilitarianism.

I note, however, that there are a lot of different ways of formulating utilitarianism (although to a large extent the precise definitions don't really matter all that much and are largely interchangeable), and I'm not a great fan of your formulation above (although I could live with it if I had to) - the definitions I personally favor are: "A person is good to the extent they are benevolent towards others; an action is good to the extent that it is done with benevolent intentions; the consequences are good to the extent that they have effects of the kind a benevolent person would wish to see happen." Note that this locates the good of the actions in the intentions rather than the consequences.

[Roy]

Perhaps you should have defined what you meant by dragons then. I took it to mean a wholly natural creature like a tiger...

So you really are that ignorant. You were talking about dragons without having the faintest idea about them.

Are there any other words you'd like me to define before you use them, or should I simply assume that any subject you pontificate on is done from a position of abject ignorance?

while you apparently brought a whole raft of unstated supernatural assumptions along for the ride,

No, I merely assumed that when you mentioned "dragons" you were referring to "dragons", and not aardvarks, aardwolves, zebras, zebus or Zenkers' flying squirrels.

But I'll remember next time that you blithely use words that you don't know the meaning of and expect others to somehow divine your misunderstanding.

in which case your argument gets turned on its head, because whether or not the supernatural exists actually does have a significant impact on one's worldview.

But that impact is for both dragons or deities. Though I expect you to fail to understand this, not least because I didn't define what I mean by 'supernatural', 'significant' or 'impact' before you used those words.

[Roy]

aturalism does not include the idea that nothing has value.

Naturalism includes the idea that things have value?

Fallacy of the excluded middle methinks.

[Meh Gerbil]

Fallacy of the excluded middle methinks.

Feel free to fill in the blanks.

[Mountain Man]

So you really are that ignorant. You were talking about dragons without having the faintest idea about them.

Are there any other words you'd like me to define before you use them, or should I simply assume that any subject you pontificate on is done from a position of abject ignorance? No, I merely assumed that when you mentioned "dragons" you were referring to "dragons", and not aardvarks, aardwolves, zebras, zebus or Zenkers' flying squirrels.

But I'll remember next time that you blithely use words that you don't know the meaning of and expect others to somehow divine your misunderstanding. But that impact is for both dragons or deities. Though I expect you to fail to understand this, not least because I didn't define what I mean by 'supernatural', 'significant' or 'impact' before you used those words.

Yes... I was ignorant of the exact properties of a fantasy creature who has appeared in multiple forms and with multiple abilities throughout human storytelling, sometimes depicted as a wholly natural creature, and other times given supernatural powers, depending on the story being told. Wow, you sure got me.

Of course I naturally assumed you were referring to the more mundane version of a dragon since your intent seemed to be to contrast it with a supernatural being like a god, but since you apparently meant a dragon that is basically a god itself, I'm not sure what the point of your argument even was.

[Roy]

Yes... I was ignorant of the exact properties of a fantasy creature who has appeared in multiple forms and with multiple abilities throughout human storytelling, sometimes depicted as a wholly natural creature, and other times given supernatural powers, depending on the story being told. Wow, you sure got me.

Yeah, I got you. You were ignorant that dragons are usually considered to have magical/supernatural powers - you substituted them with tigers - and are now frantically backpedalling to save face.

But I understand your desire to recast events to make it seem that you didn't screw up.

Of course I naturally assumed you were referring to the more mundane version of a dragon since your intent seemed to be to contrast it with a supernatural being like a god, but since you apparently meant a dragon that is basically a god itself, I'm not sure what the point of your argument even was.

That's probably because you're too stupid and ignorant to understand it. There was no such contrast when dragons were introduced, and nothing at all since then to suggest anyone was referring to non-magical dragons. You haven't even noticed that it was some-one else that introduced dragons, not me.

[Sparko]

I'm engaging it with him. Am I not?

no. you are evading and making snide comments.

[Mountain Man]

Yeah, I got you. You were ignorant that dragons are usually considered to have magical/supernatural powers - you substituted them with tigers - and are now frantically backpedalling to save face.

But I understand your desire to recast events to make it seem that you didn't screw up. That's probably because you're too stupid and ignorant to understand it. There was no such contrast when dragons were introduced, and nothing at all since then to suggest anyone was referring to non-magical dragons. You haven't even noticed that it was some-one else that introduced dragons, not me.

You may not have introduced it, but you certainly took up the argument as if it was your own, but now you're apparently trying to distance yourself from it. Maybe that has something to do with the fact that I've shot the premise full of holes? Nah, it couldn't be that.

You say that "dragons are usually considered to have magical/supernatural powers". Are they? To be honest I'm not particularly well-versed in dragon lore. But I see that even here you're trying to save face with the word "usually", which implies there are times they are not considered to have magical or supernatural powers, meaning that my assumption of what The Stinker might have meant by "dragons" was not actually off-base. He just brought different assumptions to the table than I did. Hey, it happens, and it's not worth the histrionics you've put on full display.

But feel free to continue throwing the toys out of your crib if you think it somehow makes your argument more convincing.

[Roy]

You haven't even noticed that it was some-one else that introduced dragons, not me.

You may not have introduced it, but you certainly took up the argument as if it was your own, but now you're apparently trying to distance yourself from it.

No, just noting that you are dumb enough to complain that I hadn't defined a term that you used.

Maybe that has something to do with the fact that I've shot the premise full of holes? Nah, it couldn't be that.

No, it's not that. The only thing you've shot is your own foot - and your ego is as usual too big for you to admit your own stupidity in thinking dragons are as mundane as tigers.

You say that "dragons are usually considered to have magical/supernatural powers". Are they? To be honest I'm not particularly well-versed in dragon lore.

Yeah, that's obvious. Maybe you should have thought of that before you started making assumptions about their supernaturalness.

[Mountain Man]

No, just noting that you are dumb enough to complain that I hadn't defined a term that you used. No, it's not that. The only thing you've shot is your own foot - and your ego is as usual too big for you to admit your own stupidity in thinking dragons are as mundane as tigers.Yeah, that's obvious. Maybe you should have thought of that before you started making assumptions about their supernaturalness.

Ah, OK, so you're going with "continue throwing the toys out of your crib because you think it somehow makes your argument more convincing ".

Fair enough, but you're going to have get somebody else to pick up your pacifier, because I'm done.

[The Thinker]

no. you are evading and making snide comments.

I've answered his question directly.

[The Thinker]

Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death. - James 1:15
For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. - Romans 6:23

This assumes that those lines in the Bible are inspired by Yahweh.

The Biblical perspective is that death is the result of sin.
A Christianity that doesn't recognize that isn't a different understanding of Christianity - it isn't Christianity at all.

Not all Christians agree with the Biblical perspective and you have no right (or reason) to assert that your interpretation is the correct one.