Happy Atheist forum

General => History => Topic started by: Tank on June 13, 2011, 11:17:09 PM

Title: "1945-1998" by Isao Hashimoto
Post by: Tank on June 13, 2011, 11:17:09 PM
2053 atomic devices were detonated between 1945 and 1998. This animation places all of them by time and place. Quite terrifying.

http://www.ctbto.org/specials/1945-1998-by-isao-hashimoto/
Title: Re: "1945-1998" by Isao Hashimoto
Post by: Nimzo on June 13, 2011, 11:27:59 PM
God, save us from ourselves.
Title: Re: "1945-1998" by Isao Hashimoto
Post by: Tank on June 13, 2011, 11:30:59 PM
God, save us from ourselves.
Why?
Title: Re: "1945-1998" by Isao Hashimoto
Post by: Nimzo on June 13, 2011, 11:49:27 PM
Why what?
Title: Re: "1945-1998" by Isao Hashimoto
Post by: McQ on June 14, 2011, 01:29:27 AM
Holy shit.

Title: Re: "1945-1998" by Isao Hashimoto
Post by: Tank on June 14, 2011, 08:36:29 AM
Holy shit.


It is rather isn't it. 1958 and parts of the early '60s are like watching a nuclear war but all the weapons going off on their own territory. All the way through the USAs total exceeds the sum of all the other nuclear powers combined. I was mildly amused how the British and French blew the crap out of their colonies  ;D

Did you notice the handful of British tests that took place in the USA?
Title: Re: "1945-1998" by Isao Hashimoto
Post by: Tank on June 14, 2011, 08:37:19 AM
Why what?
Why should god save us from ourselves?
Title: Re: "1945-1998" by Isao Hashimoto
Post by: Nimzo on June 14, 2011, 09:38:40 AM
Why what?
Why should god save us from ourselves?
I don't think He is under any obligation to.
Title: Re: "1945-1998" by Isao Hashimoto
Post by: Tank on June 14, 2011, 10:16:02 AM
Why what?
Why should god save us from ourselves?
I don't think He is under any obligation to.
Then why did you post 'God save us from ourselves.'? What relevance does that post have to this thread if 'He' is under no obligation to 'His' creation?
Title: Re: "1945-1998" by Isao Hashimoto
Post by: Nimzo on June 14, 2011, 10:43:51 AM
Then why did you post 'God save us from ourselves.'? What relevance does that post have to this thread if 'He' is under no obligation to 'His' creation?
Consider it a cry of desperation for the state of humanity, bent on self-destruction, to a God who, though under no obligation towards us, is a God of grace and love who will ultimately save us from ourselves.
Title: Re: "1945-1998" by Isao Hashimoto
Post by: Tank on June 14, 2011, 11:09:59 AM
Then why did you post 'God save us from ourselves.'? What relevance does that post have to this thread if 'He' is under no obligation to 'His' creation?
Consider it a cry of desperation for the state of humanity, bent on self-destruction, to a God who, though under no obligation towards us, is a God of grace and love who will ultimately save us from ourselves.
Ah! Wishful thinking at it's very best  ;)
Title: Re: "1945-1998" by Isao Hashimoto
Post by: The Magic Pudding on June 14, 2011, 11:13:54 AM
Consider it a cry of desperation for the state of humanity, bent on self-destruction, to a God who, though under no obligation towards us, is a God of grace and love who will ultimately save us from ourselves.

I don't like this attitude, I don't mind a third world mother taking comfort in god whilst burying another child, it does me no harm.  But this attitude allows people to not take responsibility for their actions.  Let's say the worlds a row boat in a stormy sea, I worry the believers aren't putting in maximum effort to keep us afloat, they underestimate the danger.  We can only be saved by our own efforts.  Even if their were a god how would you know the ability to manage our earth isn't part of the test?  Oh don't tell me, I bet it's in that book.
Title: Re: "1945-1998" by Isao Hashimoto
Post by: Tank on June 14, 2011, 11:23:56 AM
If we have free will it is down to us to sort out this sort of shit, irrespective of His existence or not. If we don't have free will then we are not responsible for what happens. If God gave us free will He is still vicariously responsible for what we do with it, so if God exists He IS ultimately responsible for the fate of the amusement park, and all the inhabitants thereof, He created.

EDIT, added below.

So calling on God to help us is a waste of time and effort as he should have never let us get into this shit in the first place or he doesn't give a shit now that we are in this situation.

So either God does not exist or he's a completely psychopath and in the later case he can go fuck himself. And I'd say that to his face if he showed up right now. But as he would be a psychopath he wouldn't care any way.
Title: Re: "1945-1998" by Isao Hashimoto
Post by: Nimzo on June 14, 2011, 12:45:15 PM
Consider it a cry of desperation for the state of humanity, bent on self-destruction, to a God who, though under no obligation towards us, is a God of grace and love who will ultimately save us from ourselves.
Ah! Wishful thinking at it's very best  ;)
Perhaps, if there was no Resurrection.
Title: Re: "1945-1998" by Isao Hashimoto
Post by: Tank on June 14, 2011, 12:51:23 PM
Consider it a cry of desperation for the state of humanity, bent on self-destruction, to a God who, though under no obligation towards us, is a God of grace and love who will ultimately save us from ourselves.
Ah! Wishful thinking at it's very best  ;)
Perhaps, if there was no Resurrection.
Wishful thinking multiplied by wishful thinking = even less reason to believe.
Title: Re: "1945-1998" by Isao Hashimoto
Post by: Nimzo on June 14, 2011, 12:51:34 PM
Consider it a cry of desperation for the state of humanity, bent on self-destruction, to a God who, though under no obligation towards us, is a God of grace and love who will ultimately save us from ourselves.
I don't like this attitude, I don't mind a third world mother taking comfort in god whilst burying another child, it does me no harm.  But this attitude allows people to not take responsibility for their actions.  Let's say the worlds a row boat in a stormy sea, I worry the believers aren't putting in maximum effort to keep us afloat, they underestimate the danger.  We can only be saved by our own efforts.  Even if their were a god how would you know the ability to manage our earth isn't part of the test?  Oh don't tell me, I bet it's in that book.
I don't think I ever denied that we are responsible for ourselves and our planet.  But if history teaches us anything, it is that sheer human effort is not enough.  The problem is with the human will, desiring to be our own gods and going to any length (even nuclear war) to bring about our own conflicting personal utopias.
Title: Re: "1945-1998" by Isao Hashimoto
Post by: Tank on June 14, 2011, 12:59:26 PM
Consider it a cry of desperation for the state of humanity, bent on self-destruction, to a God who, though under no obligation towards us, is a God of grace and love who will ultimately save us from ourselves.
I don't like this attitude, I don't mind a third world mother taking comfort in god whilst burying another child, it does me no harm.  But this attitude allows people to not take responsibility for their actions.  Let's say the worlds a row boat in a stormy sea, I worry the believers aren't putting in maximum effort to keep us afloat, they underestimate the danger.  We can only be saved by our own efforts.  Even if their were a god how would you know the ability to manage our earth isn't part of the test?  Oh don't tell me, I bet it's in that book.
I don't think I ever denied that we are responsible for ourselves and our planet.  But if history teaches us anything, it is that sheer human effort is not enough.
Smallpox wiped out , polio going the same way. All wars end, eventually, that is human effort. Human effort is all we have, so if it isn't good enough we're fucked. As long as people continue to wish for the existence of a 'great sky daddy' that will fix things they are wilfully running away from their own personal responsibility to fix that issue.  

The problem is with the human will, desiring to be our own gods and going to any length (even nuclear war) to bring about our own conflicting personal utopias.
Yes. And that has everything to do with the way we have evolved and with the institutionalised superstitions (religions) we created on the way to answer the unanswerable questions we could not bear.
Title: Re: "1945-1998" by Isao Hashimoto
Post by: Nimzo on June 14, 2011, 01:14:34 PM
If we have free will it is down to us to sort out this sort of shit, irrespective of His existence or not. If we don't have free will then we are not responsible for what happens. If God gave us free will He is still vicariously responsible for what we do with it, so if God exists He IS ultimately responsible for the fate of the amusement park, and all the inhabitants thereof, He created.
I don't personally find the term "free will" to be especially helpful, but as stated above I agree with you that we are responsible for ourselves and our planet.  If that responsibility is given to us by God (as is the Christian view), then I fail to see how God could then also be responsible (in fact, I would say ascribing responsibility to God is a category error: God is not a moral agent, but the very locus of moral value and the source of moral duty).  If we are the ones responsible, then we are the ones to be blamed.
Title: Re: "1945-1998" by Isao Hashimoto
Post by: Tank on June 14, 2011, 01:36:54 PM
If we have free will it is down to us to sort out this sort of shit, irrespective of His existence or not. If we don't have free will then we are not responsible for what happens. If God gave us free will He is still vicariously responsible for what we do with it, so if God exists He IS ultimately responsible for the fate of the amusement park, and all the inhabitants thereof, He created.
I don't personally find the term "free will" to be especially helpful, but as stated above I agree with you that we are responsible for ourselves and our planet.  If that responsibility is given to us by God (as is the Christian view), then I fail to see how God could then also be responsible (in fact, I would say ascribing responsibility to God is a category error: God is not a moral agent, but the very locus of moral value and the source of moral duty).  If we are the ones responsible, then we are the ones to be blamed.

Consider a parent who gave a child a loaded gun (i.e. free will). The parent does have vicarious responsibility for what the child does with the gun (or box of matches et al). They can't just dismiss their own part in the picture. We would ascribe responsibility to the parent in this scenario just as the existence of free will has to be God's responsibility (if God exists). And of course you don't find the term 'free will' especially helpful because you have to accommodate it in your world view, and if God exists then free will is very difficult to accommodate isn't it?
Title: Re: "1945-1998" by Isao Hashimoto
Post by: Nimzo on June 14, 2011, 03:54:43 PM
Consider a parent who gave a child a loaded gun (i.e. free will). The parent does have vicarious responsibility for what the child does with the gun (or box of matches et al). They can't just dismiss their own part in the picture. We would ascribe responsibility to the parent in this scenario just as the existence of free will has to be God's responsibility (if God exists). And of course you don't find the term 'free will' especially helpful because you have to accommodate it in your world view, and if God exists then free will is very difficult to accommodate isn't it?
The problem is that this isn't in anyway analogous to the relationship between God and us.  Firstly, as I have already said, God is not a moral agent (unlike the parent), so ascribing responsibility to Him is a category mistake.  Secondly, our responsibility is given to us by God, but a parent does not give the child responsibility in your analogy.  Third, "free will" (and I'll talk about this in a second) is not simply a loaded device for causing harm, but an ability (with freedom from particular constraints) to do both good and evil given a knowledge of the consequences of the two.

The reason I tend to avoid the term "free will" is that I always find myself asking "free from what?", and people have so many different answers to that question that it becomes unhelpful.  I've never found any particular tension between most understandings of "free will" and belief in the Christian God, and the same is true of "responsibility".  I find much more tension between the existence of moral responsibility and metaphysical naturalism, because moral values and duties do not seem to sit comfortably within a naturalistic ontology.
Title: Re: "1945-1998" by Isao Hashimoto
Post by: Tank on June 14, 2011, 04:12:16 PM
Consider a parent who gave a child a loaded gun (i.e. free will). The parent does have vicarious responsibility for what the child does with the gun (or box of matches et al). They can't just dismiss their own part in the picture. We would ascribe responsibility to the parent in this scenario just as the existence of free will has to be God's responsibility (if God exists). And of course you don't find the term 'free will' especially helpful because you have to accommodate it in your world view, and if God exists then free will is very difficult to accommodate isn't it?
The problem is that this isn't in anyway analogous to the relationship between God and us.  Firstly, as I have already said, God is not a moral agent (unlike the parent), so ascribing responsibility to Him is a category mistake.
What you say is simply your opinion, with no objective measurable evidence to support your position. As you have not rigorously defined God's capabilities and you can not, because by definition God is beyond human understanding (Islamic tradition states this), then anything you assert about the capabilities of God are just your 'wishful' thinking.

Secondly, our responsibility is given to us by God, but a parent does not give the child responsibility in your analogy. 
I contend that a parent should not give anything to a child for which the child is not capable of understanding its capabilities or taking full responsibility for its use. God gives free will a parent gives a child a gun is analogous

Third, "free will" (and I'll talk about this in a second) is not simply a loaded device for causing harm, but an ability (with freedom from particular constraints) to do both good and evil given a knowledge of the consequences of the two.
A gun can be used for good or evil, for murder or defence. A gun has no inherent moral properties any more or any less then 'free will' does. It is the use the gun is put to that has moral issues in exactly the same way that the exercise of 'free will' has moral implication.

The reason I tend to avoid the term "free will" is that I always find myself asking "free from what?", and people have so many different answers to that question that it becomes unhelpful.  I've never found any particular tension between most understandings of "free will" and belief in the Christian God, and the same is true of "responsibility".  I find much more tension between the existence of moral responsibility and metaphysical naturalism, because moral values and duties do not seem to sit comfortably within a naturalistic ontology.
That's your problem, not mine.

So calling on God to help us out of our nuclear dilemma is a complete waste of time and effort. If God exists the dilemma is His problem as one way or another He caused it. If God does not exist then there is no point in calling for His aid is there?
Title: Re: "1945-1998" by Isao Hashimoto
Post by: Nimzo on June 14, 2011, 05:01:26 PM
What you say is simply your opinion, with no objective measurable evidence to support your position. As you have not rigorously defined God's capabilities and you can not, because by definition God is beyond human understanding (Islamic tradition states this), then anything you assert about the capabilities of God are just your 'wishful' thinking.
So are you doing an internal or external critique of my views?  You have suddenly switched to an external critique about a lack of evidence, whereas you started with an internal critique arguing that God is responsible for evils caused by human beings.  For the internal critique, it is perfectly legitimate for me to simply state any of the views (which are Christian views, not Islamic) which resolve any apparent tension you bring up.  If it is an external critique you want to do, then you should have simply started by saying "there is no objective measurable evidence for your God" and left it at that (in fact I would have agreed with this statement, though not with your implicit scientistic criterion that measurable evidence is required for rational belief). 

Quote
Secondly, our responsibility is given to us by God, but a parent does not give the child responsibility in your analogy.
I contend that a parent should not give anything to a child for which the child is not capable of understanding its capabilities or taking full responsibility for its use. God gives free will a parent gives a child a gun is analogous.
As I said previously, knowledge of the consequences of good and evil actions are given alongside free will and moral responsibility – indeed, they are necessary for free will and moral responsibility.  Unless you want to argue that human beings do not know or understand that there are consequences to morally significant actions, your analogy does not hold.

Quote
Third, "free will" (and I'll talk about this in a second) is not simply a loaded device for causing harm, but an ability (with freedom from particular constraints) to do both good and evil given a knowledge of the consequences of the two.
A gun can be used for good or evil, for murder or defence. A gun has no inherent moral properties any more or any less then 'free will' does. It is the use the gun is put to that has moral issues in exactly the same way that the exercise of 'free will' has moral implication.
If that is the level of analogy you are going to, then there is no need to choose a gun more than any other object: a lemon, a plastic beaker or a Crayon can also be used for good or evil and will thus suffice for your argument, which rather exposes the absurdity of your analogy.

Quote
The reason I tend to avoid the term "free will" is that I always find myself asking "free from what?", and people have so many different answers to that question that it becomes unhelpful.  I've never found any particular tension between most understandings of "free will" and belief in the Christian God, and the same is true of "responsibility".  I find much more tension between the existence of moral responsibility and metaphysical naturalism, because moral values and duties do not seem to sit comfortably within a naturalistic ontology.
That's your problem, not mine.
Well…no, because I’m not a metaphysical naturalist (whereas, with you being an asupernaturalist, you are also forced to accept that either moral values and duties are part of the natural world, or do not exist).


Quote
So calling on God to help us out of our nuclear dilemma is a complete waste of time and effort. If God exists the dilemma is His problem as one way or another He caused it. If God does not exist then there is no point in calling for His aid is there?
You have yet to show that a Christian should believe that God is even a moral agent, let alone that if He exists He is responsible for man’s evil.
Title: Re: "1945-1998" by Isao Hashimoto
Post by: Tank on June 14, 2011, 06:39:34 PM
So calling on God to help us out of our nuclear dilemma is a complete waste of time and effort. If God exists the dilemma is His problem as one way or another He caused it. If God does not exist then there is no point in calling for His aid is there?
You have yet to show that a Christian should believe that God is even a moral agent, let alone that if He exists He is responsible for man’s evil.
I think we can stick with this point for brevity. Your God, you present evidence it exists before I feel any need to debate that existence.
Title: Re: "1945-1998" by Isao Hashimoto
Post by: Nimzo on June 14, 2011, 06:52:44 PM
Quote from: Nimzo
You have yet to show that a Christian should believe that God is even a moral agent, let alone that if He exists He is responsible for man’s evil.
I think we can stick with this point for brevity. Your God, you present evidence it exists before I feel any need to debate that existence.
You speak of God as if "it" is a scientific hypothesis.  I have no interest in debating or defending the existence of such a god.
Title: Re: "1945-1998" by Isao Hashimoto
Post by: Tank on June 14, 2011, 07:14:38 PM
Quote from: Nimzo
You have yet to show that a Christian should believe that God is even a moral agent, let alone that if He exists He is responsible for man’s evil.
I think we can stick with this point for brevity. Your God, you present evidence it exists before I feel any need to debate that existence.
You speak of God as if "it" is a scientific hypothesis.  I have no interest in debating or defending the existence of such a god.

Fine by me, you raised the subject of God in this thread, not I. ;D
Title: Re: "1945-1998" by Isao Hashimoto
Post by: McQ on June 14, 2011, 07:18:47 PM
Holy shit.


It is rather isn't it. 1958 and parts of the early '60s are like watching a nuclear war but all the weapons going off on their own territory. All the way through the USAs total exceeds the sum of all the other nuclear powers combined. I was mildly amused how the British and French blew the crap out of their colonies  ;D

Did you notice the handful of British tests that took place in the USA?

No, I didn't notice the British tests in the US, but I did see all those territories getting bombed! LOL! When that first one went off in Australia, I was really surprised. It makes total sense to have tested there, but I never knew they did so.
Title: Re: "1945-1998" by Isao Hashimoto
Post by: Nimzo on June 14, 2011, 07:21:57 PM
Fine by me, you raised the subject of God in this thread, not I. ;D
That'll teach me for saying the word "God" out loud.  ;)
Title: Re: "1945-1998" by Isao Hashimoto
Post by: Davin on June 14, 2011, 07:31:53 PM
Fine by me, you raised the subject of God in this thread, not I. ;D
That'll teach me for saying the word "God" out loud.  ;)
Or you could take the lesson of explaining that it was an exclamation not meant to be taken literaly instead of avoiding questions like you had done. This is not in the nub zone, this is in the general zone which is meant for discussion.
Title: Re: "1945-1998" by Isao Hashimoto
Post by: Nimzo on June 14, 2011, 07:37:01 PM
That'll teach me for saying the word "God" out loud.  ;)
Or you could take the lesson of explaining that it was an exclamation not meant to be taken literaly instead of avoiding questions like you had done. This is not in the nub zone, this is in the general zone which is meant for discussion.
Well it was meant "literally", as well as being an exclamation (as I explained at the beginning).  Which questions were these that I avoided?
Title: Re: "1945-1998" by Isao Hashimoto
Post by: Recusant on June 14, 2011, 07:48:14 PM
You have yet to show that a Christian should believe that God is even a moral agent, let alone that if He exists He is responsible for man’s evil.

I've seen you assert here more than once that the Christian view is that "God is not a moral agent."

How does a Christian reconcile this with the supposed sacrifice of Jesus? Does not Jesus as described in the Bible perform moral acts? Is Jesus not the Christian god?

A couple of Old Testament examples of YHVH apparently acting as a moral agent; the global flood, and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. When your god acts directly (no intermediaries whatever) in this world to pursue an (apparently moral) agenda, how is it possible to avoid describing him as a moral agent?
Title: Re: "1945-1998" by Isao Hashimoto
Post by: Davin on June 14, 2011, 07:53:20 PM
That'll teach me for saying the word "God" out loud.  ;)
Or you could take the lesson of explaining that it was an exclamation not meant to be taken literaly instead of avoiding questions like you had done. This is not in the nub zone, this is in the general zone which is meant for discussion.
Well it was meant "literally", as well as being an exclamation (as I explained at the beginning).  Which questions were these that I avoided?
If you meant it literally, then you should have no complaints for being asked to defend the statement.

God, save us from ourselves.
Why?

Why what?

Instead of answering why, you asked "Why what?" which is an avoidance to answering a very clear and direct question.

As a second bit of advice, don't state things as a fact if you're not willing to back the statements up with evidence and/or reasoning.

Consider it a cry of desperation for the state of humanity, bent on self-destruction, to a God who, though under no obligation towards us, is a God of grace and love who will ultimately save us from ourselves.
You will have to provide the evidence to support your positive claims. I'd like to know how you know that this god is a god of grace, a god of love and a god that will ultimately save us from ourselves.
Title: Re: "1945-1998" by Isao Hashimoto
Post by: Nimzo on June 14, 2011, 08:29:10 PM
I've seen you assert here more than once that the Christian view is that "God is not a moral agent."

How does a Christian reconcile this with the supposed sacrifice of Jesus? Does not Jesus as described in the Bible perform moral acts? Is Jesus not the Christian god?

A couple of Old Testament examples of YHVH apparently acting as a moral agent; the global flood, and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. When your god acts directly (no intermediaries whatever) in this world to pursue an agenda, how is it possible to avoid describing him as a moral agent?
I wouldn't go so far as to say that it is the Christian view, but I think it is the correct one.  By a moral agent, I mean a being who is able to choose between good and evil, but is under a moral obligation to choose good.  In other words, a moral agent is a morally responsible being, whose actions are held to account by a standard of morality (Goodness).  In my view (and it can be shown clearly, I believe, the Biblical view) is that God is not a moral agent by this definition.  Rather, God's nature is Goodness: He is the standard of morality.  He is not able choose evil, only good.  He is under no obligation to choose good, and His actions are not held to account by anything or anyone.  He is not morally responsible for anything or to anyone.  Now, this does not mean that He doesn't perform acts which are morally good.  On the contrary, all of the acts He performs are morally good.
Title: Re: "1945-1998" by Isao Hashimoto
Post by: Tank on June 14, 2011, 08:29:27 PM
Holy shit.


It is rather isn't it. 1958 and parts of the early '60s are like watching a nuclear war but all the weapons going off on their own territory. All the way through the USAs total exceeds the sum of all the other nuclear powers combined. I was mildly amused how the British and French blew the crap out of their colonies  ;D

Did you notice the handful of British tests that took place in the USA?

No, I didn't notice the British tests in the US, but I did see all those territories getting bombed! LOL! When that first one went off in Australia, I was really surprised. It makes total sense to have tested there, but I never knew they did so.

One of the things that I had never appreciated was how many nukes the French had detonated. No wonder the French Polynesians are up in arms about the contamination.

I think I'm right in saying those British tested in the USA warheads were for the Trident system. Apparently computer modelling is better now. But the French computer models were not up to scratch hence all the real bombs.
Title: Re: "1945-1998" by Isao Hashimoto
Post by: Nimzo on June 14, 2011, 08:36:19 PM
Quote from: Nimzo
Well it was meant "literally", as well as being an exclamation (as I explained at the beginning).  Which questions were these that I avoided?
If you meant it literally, then you should have no complaints for being asked to defend the statement.
It wasn't a declarative statement, but an exclamation, as stated already.  There is, thus, nothing to defend in it.  That is why the following discussion was about my exclaiming it, not the exclamation itself.

Quote
Instead of answering why, you asked "Why what?" which is an avoidance to answering a very clear and direct question.
It was a question of clarification (the question Why? has more than one possible meaning), and I answered the clarified question afterwards.

Quote
As a second bit of advice, don't state things as a fact if you're not willing to back the statements up with evidence and/or reasoning.
I am quite willing to defend the statements I made.  That doesn't mean that it was necessary for me to do so for each one (for example, in my responses to Tank's internal critique).  There is also an infinite regress problem here lurking round the corner somewhere...

Quote
Consider it a cry of desperation for the state of humanity, bent on self-destruction, to a God who, though under no obligation towards us, is a God of grace and love who will ultimately save us from ourselves.
You will have to provide the evidence to support your positive claims. I'd like to know how you know that this god is a god of grace, a god of love and a god that will ultimately save us from ourselves.
Pop on over to the "Question for Nimzo (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=7650.0)" thread for the very small beginnings of an approach to that question.
Title: Re: "1945-1998" by Isao Hashimoto
Post by: wildfire_emissary on June 21, 2011, 01:29:28 AM
You have yet to show that a Christian should believe that God is even a moral agent, let alone that if He exists He is responsible for man’s evil.

I've seen you assert here more than once that the Christian view is that "God is not a moral agent."

How does a Christian reconcile this with the supposed sacrifice of Jesus? Does not Jesus as described in the Bible perform moral acts? Is Jesus not the Christian god?

A couple of Old Testament examples of YHVH apparently acting as a moral agent; the global flood, and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. When your god acts directly (no intermediaries whatever) in this world to pursue an (apparently moral) agenda, how is it possible to avoid describing him as a moral agent?

YHWH don't do that no more. He sent Jesus for those. And he's only good for the end of days. They have the bible right now. Sam Harris said something about Christians seeing a mushroom cloud but also seeing a silver lining because it means Jesus is coming.
Title: Re: "1945-1998" by Isao Hashimoto
Post by: Recusant on June 21, 2011, 04:14:26 AM
...By a moral agent, I mean a being who is able to choose between good and evil, but is under a moral obligation to choose good.  In other words, a moral agent is a morally responsible being, whose actions are held to account by a standard of morality (Goodness).  In my view (and it can be shown clearly, I believe, the Biblical view) is that God is not a moral agent by this definition.  Rather, God's nature is Goodness: He is the standard of morality.  He is not able choose evil, only good.  He is under no obligation to choose good, and His actions are not held to account by anything or anyone.  He is not morally responsible for anything or to anyone.  Now, this does not mean that He doesn't perform acts which are morally good.  On the contrary, all of the acts He performs are morally good.

Thank you for the clarification.

OK; I can see how one might choose to deny any questions regarding the actions of their god by asserting that according to their understanding, their god is the definition of good.  Any questions about drowning an entire world, ordering the slaughter of entire nations (down to and including babes in arms [e. g. 1 Samuel 15:3 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Samuel%2015:3&version=KJV), Deuteronomy 7:1-2 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%207.1-2&version=KJV), Deuteronomy 20:16 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2020.16&version=KJV)]) are dismissed as a shortfall in human understanding; "my god's ways are beyond human understanding." So when a mere human questions such biblical genocides they are trying to apply their moral understanding, but they don't have that right because the god's actions by definition are good according to the believer, and any attempt to apply morality to the god is a failure.  This god cannot be judged; he only judges. Thus not a moral agent.  I failed to ask what you meant by the term "moral agent," and I appreciate you setting me right.
Title: Re: "1945-1998" by Isao Hashimoto
Post by: DaemonWulf on August 24, 2011, 04:05:10 AM
God is not a moral agent by this definition.  Rather, God's nature is Goodness: He is the standard of morality.  He is not able choose evil, only good.  He is under no obligation to choose good, and His actions are not held to account by anything or anyone.  He is not morally responsible for anything or to anyone.  Now, this does not mean that He doesn't perform acts which are morally good.  On the contrary, all of the acts He performs are morally good.
Thank you for the clarification.

OK; I can see how one might choose to deny any questions regarding the actions of their god by asserting that according to their understanding, their god is the definition of good.  Any questions about drowning an entire world, ordering the slaughter of entire nations (down to and including babes in arms [e. g. 1 Samuel 15:3 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Samuel%2015:3&version=KJV), Deuteronomy 7:1-2 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%207.1-2&version=KJV), Deuteronomy 20:16 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2020.16&version=KJV)]) are dismissed as a shortfall in human understanding; "my god's ways are beyond human understanding." So when a mere human questions such biblical genocides they are trying to apply their moral understanding, but they don't have that right because the god's actions by definition are good according to the believer, and any attempt to apply morality to the god is a failure.  This god cannot be judged; he only judges. Thus not a moral agent.  I failed to ask what you meant by the term "moral agent," and I appreciate you setting me right.

Not trying to sound like a prick here, but I have to point out that sounds like the great-granddaddy of all weak cop-outs right there. So he's all powerful, all-seeing, all-knowing, and yet not capable of anything but good? And because of the assumption that he's only capable of good, he's beyond reproach? Above question? Well isn't THAT convenient. The church has the market cornered on propaganda.
Title: Re: "1945-1998" by Isao Hashimoto
Post by: Tank on August 08, 2012, 09:26:06 PM
Bump for new members.
Title: Re: "1945-1998" by Isao Hashimoto
Post by: BooksCatsEtc on August 08, 2012, 11:15:48 PM
Consider it a cry of desperation for the state of humanity, bent on self-destruction, to a God who, though under no obligation towards us, is a God of grace and love who will ultimately save us from ourselves.
Ah! Wishful thinking at it's very best  ;)
Perhaps, if there was no Resurrection.

A subject under much debate, even among religious scholars, and dependant on the existance of the supernatural.  I'm not holding my breath.