Question, why would a child-killing, genocidal omni-warlord be afraid of an atheist?

Debate Room
1

I’ve seen quotes from atheists saying “if God exists, he should be afraid of what I have to say” or “If there is a God, He will have to beg my forgiveness”. (This text moved here by mod, title was too long.)

“If God exists, he should be afraid of what I have to say”

“If there is a God, He will have to beg my forgiveness”.

Let’s say you’re Kim Jong Un, or Hitler, or fuck it, God from the Bible (Judges 4:13-16 features ‘god’ casually killing 900 people), or some other genocidal maniac with a lot of power and murdered millions. Why would you be afraid of what some people “below” you have to say about you? Why would you beg for forgiveness from someone inferior and weaker than you?

2

I don’t know how to answer this question or even debate it . . . perhaps because I’m not a sociopath, and I don’t know how to relate (in a meaningful way) to amoral people who don’t have a conscience.

5 Likes
3

I don’t think I’ve ever heard those 2 quotes of your’s before, where the fuck did you come up with these?

2 Likes
4

Oh I’ve seen random Internet posters say things like this. I think it’s not meant literally so much as to convey that unbelievers wouldn’t automatically worship a god even if it were demonstrated to exist; there would be ethical hurdles to overcome. “God would have some ‘splainin’ to do”. Not really alleging that he actually WOULD explain; just that he’d have to do some fast talking to gain the worship of people with a conscience.

2 Likes
5

ok, I would think any god or gods would be terrified of those questions. It has so far, in our shared reality, been the reality that any god’s existence is predicated on belief.
In other words, if nobody believes then that god is powerless.

On examination of history, gods only have power when a substantial portion of society either believes, is forced to show signs of belief (Roman sacrifice on incense for example) or acquiesces to the power structure of their society in which a god or gods are central to the ruling classes perceived “power” over those lesser in society. .

When a doubter asks questions, especially those that are sane, point to inconsistencies in the god’s behavior, manifestation, and very existence, then of course that god is terrified. its power has gone. Naturally, those in power (the right hands, the hammer of) the god or gods may act on its behalf. The circle continues and the power structure inevitably decays and falls.

Without unconditional belief all gods are powerless. History is a strict teacher.

3 Likes
6

Dibs on the band name ‘Genocidal Omni-Lord’.

2 Likes
7

I didn’t see the original claim, so the context is lost. However the word if at the start of the assertion, suggests this was a hypothetical moral opinion, not a literal observation.

1 Like
8

This was the very premise of Neil Gaiman’s novel (and subsequent TV series), American Gods. At the beginning, Odin is an elderly nobody living in Chicago by the name of Mr. Wednesday (Wednesday = Wodinsday = Odin’s Day) because no one believes in him anymore. He’s plotting a comeback and latches onto a recently released criminal as his sidekick.

2 Likes
9

He expanded on several philosophical arguments of the late 19th and mid 20th centuries.

3 Likes
10

Sounds like it belongs to a Nu Metal band lol

2 Likes
11

I would say if one considers the hypothesis of a divine, omnipotent, creator entity (God) to which all of existence is attributed - either by conscious will or as an extension of the nature of that entity (for example, love - I would argue it would needs be inherent in the entity, not something they could create and therefore have a beginning - some concepts must necessarily be eternal)

On the question of morality, which pertains to the question at hand, morality would necessarily be one of those necessarily eternal concepts, and I would argue that in the context of the aforementioned hypothesis, the entity must necessarily be the pinnacle of morality.

i.e., it would not be possible for any subjective view of morality - either in thought or in practice - to exceed (objectively be an improvement on) the morality of that entity.

While there may be substantial opposition to that view, I would also argue that:

  1. The subjectivity of morality for anyone who is not the entity is just that - subjective. Yes, I am very much aware that sounds like a special pleading fallacy, but morality from our perspective is demonstrably subjective. Each person has a personal view of morality, and there is no source by which morality can be independently derived. Whereas in the context of a creator entity, there would be a time (or timeless given the eternal nature of said entity) when there was only one morality, and further, the act of creation would be within the context of that morality, so the very fact of existence would be inexorably linked to that same morality.

  2. Opposition to the perceived morality of “God” is based on incomplete data, and is therefore unsupportable in any meaningful capacity.

Consider the following example:

A person enters a building and “kills” everyone inside that building.

Another person hearing of this event would reasonably consider the actions of the person to be extremely immoral.

Now, if further data was added - such as the people in the building were planning a violent uprising, and the person who entered acted defensively while attempting to prevent their plans from being put into action (i.e., they tried to murder the person and the person defended themselves) - the actions of the person would appear moral instead.

Returning to the original question, I would say when it comes to the question of morality and “God”, there are two primary points:

  1. Responsibility
  2. Accountability

For “Responsibility”, this aligns with the quotes, “if God exists, […]” - responsibility is assigned on the conditional existence of an entity deemed responsible for allowing events to occur, that would otherwise be in their power to prevent

For “Accountability”, this aligns with the example scripture reference (Judges 4:13-16) - accountability is based on actions attributed to the entity (i.e., a claimed admission of the entity’s actions)

The first point, responsibility, is an interesting one as in the absence of any god or equivalent omnipotent entity, where is the question of morality directed?

It would be illogical to declare an unthinking, un-willed natural universe to be immoral, but if a naturally existing universe isn’t immoral, what difference occurs when one considers the role of a creator entity?

As numerous iterations of “Spiderman” have been told, “With great power comes great responsibility” - having the power to intervene is considered to be inexorably linked to the necessity to intervene - the responsibility to act. But this is an over-simplification, and where we come back to the point of missing data.

It’s easy to say “this bad thing happened, God did not intervene. I can subjectively perceive intervention as being the greater moral choice, therefore the absence of intervention must be immoral, therefore God being omnipotent is immoral”

But the problem here is - when a person intervenes, they can stop that one action. Whereas when “God” is held responsible, it is for all actions.

What essentially is being called for is the removal of all capacity for immorality. This in turn removes all capacity for morality because you can’t have one without the other.

Without the capacity for morality/immorality, you’ve essentially lost the capacity for free will. Morality is a motivator for choice. Love is a motivator for choice. Desire is a motivator for choice., etc.

They’re all tied together.

Morality is linked to love, linked to desire, linked to suffering, etc.

Choice is about needs. Without need/want/desire, there is no purpose to choose anything. Without need/want/desire, there is no suffering. Discomfort, pain, anguish, etc. can simply be reframed as "I need/want/desire to experience increased levels of comfort. Pain is just a signal from the body that something needs to be fixed or stopped.

12

Morality didn’t exist until there were two people who had to cooperate or coexist. Without that condition, there inherently are no moral considerations. Rocks do not have ethics.

Humans can behave in ways that harm others, or not. The motivation to not harm others is some combination of empathy (the ability to imagine what it would be like to be harmed, and not wanting to cause that) and rational self-interest (e.g., I might need that other person’s help or cooperation, they are worth more to me alive than dead or sick).

Those motivations arise out of being human.

At the level of society, morality is just an informal negotiation of how we want to coexist. Most sane and mindful people want a civil society because it’s the way any one person can pursue their lives with a minimum of energy expenditure.

None of this requires a deity or some ineffable eternality. It just requires people.

As to the question of accountability and responsibility … theists universally think that without their deus ex machina all the wheels come of and anything goes. This has never been true. In a majority theist society people still commit atrocities and in a majority atheist society people still do compassionate and kind things.

It is manifestly obvious in the midst of the vile harms we are experiencing today that theism is no sort of leavening. Indeed, it serves as an excuse for cruelty. It is the ultimate expression of, “I was just following orders”.

If there’s a version of theism that claims to be the keeper of the flame of morality, it is Christian fundamentalism. I grew up in it. I was told there were absolutes and non-negotiables. But it was all up for sale at the right price (or, if you will, the right “mess of pottage”). Now it is just an excuse to be a hateful bigot and to harm other people who you disagree with – up to, and including, murder.

13

Why would I consider this, what objective evidence can you demonstrate such a deity exists, or any deity, or indeed that any deity is even possible?

All the rest is conjecture without this, you might as well be telling us about your thoughts on unicorn husbandry.

Begging the question, and a circular reasoning fallacy. If you assume your conclusion(s) in your opening premise, your argument is fallacious / irrational.

That would depend what you hoped to achieve with that moral worldview, as that is an entirely subjective claim, as are moral worldviews.

As compared to something you have imagined, and then imagined to possess objective morality, without any pretence at evidencing either claim.

Also the biblical deity’s “morals” can be examined in the text, and found to be barbarically cruel and indifferent to suffering, of course it is just my subjective opinion, but torturing a newborn baby to death, or committing an act of global genocide, while endorsing slavery, is not what I would consider to be moral behaviour, especially for a deity with literally limitless choice.

Nice try, but we have the same data you do champ, if you have more data provide it, otherwise you don’t get to claim it exists and assign it to a deity unchallenged.

No Need, I worked out long ago that morality is both subjective and relative.

Now where are we on you demonstrating any objective evidence that any deity exists, or is even possible?

Nope, there is one primary point, can you demonstrate that such a deity exists or is even possible, the rest is entirely moot until you can.

Of course, as morality without a sentient choice would render the word meaningless.

Or inactions, and since the thread is contemplating an omnipotent and omniscient deity, it is a reasonable hypothetical. Far more reasonable than the hypothetical religious argument that an omnipotent omniscient and omnibenevolent deity exists, that designed and created a world where suffering is ubiquitous. I’d say unnecessary suffering, but to an omnipotent deity no suffering need be necessary, again by definition.

Completely the wrong way around, without some level of autonomy, moral judgements would be meaningless.

No it isn’t, if we act out of necessity then choice is mitigated, though how much might be a subjective assessment.

No, that’s clearly a facile false equivalence if ever there was one.

another oversimplification, it is an evolved trait that can improve our odds of survival, and of course would be unnecessary to any omnipotent deity.

1 Like
14

My point was in the context of the hypothetical creator entity mentioned in my first paragaph.

If we were to consider a godless existence, do you consider that animals have morality? Animals co-exist, and if humans evolved naturally, at what point did morality enter into the mix?

[quote=“mordant, post:12, topic:6877”]
As to the question of accountability and responsibility … theists universally think that without their deus ex machina all the wheels come of and anything goes.[/quote]

I was not making an argument in that nature. It was in reference to the OP, and aligns with the “problem of evil” that is often raised in relation to the question of an omnipotent being.

It sounds like our posts are at cross-purposes. Your response, as I understand it, is focusing more on a divine entity not being necessary for morality to exist. I am not disputing your points in that regard personally, so I don’t have anything to add in that particular aspect of the discussion.

15

@fireflies, some clarifications, please. You’re asserting that:

  1. the hypothetical god you’ve describe owns the pinnacle of morality and all the others hold only varied subsets of it?
  2. the others are ignorant of all the reasons behind the god’s in/actions so therefore there cannot be a “problem of evil”?
  3. that all components (you cited love) present in the others must necessarily be present in the god?
16

My answer would be a qualified yes … animals also have morality at various lesser degrees of amplitude, in keeping with their level of self-awareness.

Perhaps you’ve seen the video of a turtle in the water, flailing on its back, and a bunch of other turtles encircle it and turn it over.

A baby hippo stuck in the mud and an elephant pulls it out with its trunk.

Dogs adopting baby cats and vice versa.

A sighted cat and a blind cat living symbiotically, one always in physical contact with the other, guiding it, roaming the streets together.

Countless other examples.

It is plain that higher animals have empathy and thus have the foundations for moral values.

That does not mean that nature is not “red in tooth and claw”. Just as with humans, expressed morality is selective and contextual, and better developed in individuals that live in an environment where it is not all about bare survival every second of every day. The more awareness brought to the needs of the group, accidentally or on purpose, the more an ethical code of sorts develops. It simply has the most potential in humans, who alone so far as we know, are fully aware of the total story arc of their existence, and thus have the shared experience of being aware of their own mortality to help bind them together (and, of course, drive them apart with various conflicting futile immortality projects).

17

This is in relation to the original post that is a question relating to God’s morality. It is necessary to side-step the larger question of God’s existence in order to address the specific question of the morality of the claimed God.

If your precondition for any question relating to a god is proof that a god exists in the first place, there would be no point in you engaging in any discussions about any god(s) that are contingent on a god’s hypothetical existence.

This question is contingent, so I initiated my response on the basis of that contingent requirement and framed it as hypothetical to facilitate discussion without the need to address the question of proof for existence.

It’s like if someone asked the question about Cthulu’s tentacles being slimy to the touch or rubbery - answering the question is contingent on an acceptance of the mythos for the purposes of the question. If someone replied and was then challenged to first prove that Cthulu existed, it would be illogical. The OP necessitates side-stepping the question of the omnipotent entity’s proof for existence to address the hypothetical question of morality should such an entity exist.

The opening premise was necessary to engage with the OP as stated above.

Within the context of a hypothetically existing creator entity, that entity would be the ultimate morality. I’m just establishing that it would be a necessary trait for an omnipotent creator being.

Again, this is in the context of the OP. Nothing has been imagined, it is within the hypothesis necessary to discuss the question of morality for such an entity. I am not claiming such an entity exists, I’m operating within the hypothetical environment.

I am not claiming to have more data. I am pointing out that if a hypothetical omnipotent creator entity exists, then there is data pertaining to its actions and inactions that we do not have access to.

Essentially, if one considers the OP to be a judgement on the hypothetical entity, my argument at this point is highlighting that before a judgement can be made, the facts of the case have to be considered.

In a court hearing, the “defence” has to have an opportunity to present a case or the judgement would be unjust. The same applies here. If one is to declare that if an omnipotent entity exists it must be immoral (i.e. the problem of evil), my response is that such a judgement without the necessary data is unjust.

I am not claiming the entity exists, it is conditional on if the entity exists.

I’m confused - you’ve switched from demanding I prove the existence of the entity to accepting it as a reasonable hypothetical.

And no, not inactions. When I stated actions, it was in the context of the “bad thing happened” - a person can intervene to “stop that one action” (the bad thing) whereas “God” is held responsible “for all actions” (all bad things that have occurred without intervention).

I think you’re considering the entity’s actions and inactions, but I already framed it earlier as responsibility (the entity not preventing bad things happening) and accountability (the entity’s actions enabling or causing a “bad thing” to occur)

It’s not a case of cause and effect - there is no wrong or right way round. It’s a matter of symbiosis - morality and free will are entwined. You can’t have one without the other. No free will without morality and no morality without free will.

I wasn’t claiming that there was a “one way”, only that morality is necessary for free will. I took it as a given that free will is necessary for morality as that would be stating the obvious.

When I say choice is about needs, it is not an over-simplification but a valid reduction. It may sound simplistic, but if you expand need/desire beyond survival to include values, principles, preferences, etc. they all can be reduced to needs.

A person’s values are an internal sense of right and wrong and a need/desire to choose one over the other, and so on.

need/desire isn’t limited to base biological necessity - it encompasses all internal motivators when reduced to their fundamental drivers, which are all some form of need/desire.

I didn’t state an omnipotent deity was necessary, nor was I denying pain was an evolved trait linked to survival. I was just pointing out how it functions. Your point that it is an evolved trait that can improve our odds of survival doesn’t contradict what I said - it improves our odds by signalling that something needs to be fixed or stopped.

18
  1. My argument is that an omnipotent creator entity would necessarily be the pinnacle of morality by definition as being omnipotent and creator.

If one considers that in the context of a creator entity, nothing can exist except through the actions (either direct or indirect) of that entity, then morality by definition cannot exceed the morality of the creator because that would be something existing apart from the creator’s morality.

Further, if one considers the omnipotent aspect - omnipotence would be defined as unlimited power and authority - this would be all forms of authority including morality.

As to what others hold, I wouldn’t go as far as to declare them necessarily subsets, just that they are subjective views - as to whether they are a subset (i.e. containing some views from the objective whole but not all; and not containing views not present in the objective) or whether they are a mix (some views from the objective, some views not in the objective) or even not present at all (no views from the objective) or even possibly an exact match for the objective, I couldn’t say.

  1. people would be unaware of the full reasons/purposes/etc. behind a hypothetical god’s in/actions, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t a problem of evil - just that the framing of the problem isn’t necessarily correct. Any judgement aspect in the problem of evil would be premature.

The problem still remains for people - there is still a need to reconcile evil/suffering occurring in the world - my point in this discussion is simply that passing judgement can’t take all factors into account and is unwarranted on that basis, but the question/problem is still valid.

  1. The maximal positive components (love, morality, etc.) must necessarily be present in the entity, yes.

For example, if we consider humour - I would argue a creator entity would not be able to create the concept for humour without having that component as an innate positive quality in its maximal capacity (one might argue however that humour is a subset of joy/happiness but I consider it to have distinct qualities that make it stand apart)

19

Why would we consider any other kind of existence?

This one is also called a false dicotomy fallacy.

They have evolved to do so. All animals that have evolved to live in societal groups exhibit morality. Adding an unevidenced deity is unecessary.

No it isn’t, unless you’re answering the hypothetical thread question, and you’re not, you’re arguments are predicated on the existence of a deity, without that claim they’re meaningless.

I never mentioned proof.

You’re not arguing for a hypothetical, it’s in your profile, and in your posts.

I never mentioned proof.

It was fallacious, and you don’t seem to have addressed your fallacy?

No, you’re simply asserting it, you cant establish that mermaids are slimy to the touch with a bare assertion. You’d first have to demonstrate mermaids are possible, and god claims are no different to any other claim.

No it isn’t, the thread OP is a hypothetical, you cannot make bare assertions about a hypothetical and pretend this demonstrates anything beyond wishful thinking on your part.

You were making claims about it’s nature using words like necessary, that is not a hypothetical, but even were you not, your arguments were fallacious, and your assertions wholly unevidenced.

Then you can’t make a bare assertion such data exists, if you can’t demonstrate this exists, and you did just that.

You’ve presented no facts, only bare claims, and irrational arguments.

Indeed, but this is an irrational fals equivalence, as in such a court case bare unevidenced claims would not represent evidence.

We have all the data, as we are judging a hypothetical claim by a religion. You don’t get to claim you’re defending that hypothetical, then claim tge imaginary deity possesses data we don’t have.

I made no such claim, why do you keep misrepresenting what I said?

Of course it would be, an omnipotent deity could prevent immoraility, if it does not, then it’s actions by definition would be immoral, and of course if this deity were claimed to be omnibenevolent, this involves a logical contradiction.

This doesn’t address my point at all?

Morality has no meaning without any autonomy of choice, a rock is not immoral.

No, morality evolves with autonomy of choice, not the other way around. Some animals have evolved with some autonomy, but no morality. No animal has evolved morality without some autonomy.

Morality comes from autonomy, not the other way around.

Then that assertion makes no sense, it is also wrong of course.

No it isn’t and that’s not what you actually said.

Any action based on necessity is by definition not a choice. Choice is a necesaary requirement for an action to be considered moral or not.

I made neither claim, you need to read it again.

The point is that pain works so it evolved, but an omnipotent deity need not have included pain, and is a logical absurdity to claim an omnibenevolent deity would.

1 Like
20

I agree that animals show empathy, and that empathy-based behaviours and pro-sociality can be considered the building blocks for morality, but I would say it is a stretch to call it morality in even a rudimentary sense.

I accept that one can reasonably consider that morality could have evolved in humans from these building blocks, but I don’t think morality, as understood by humans, is present in animals.