Satan is the unsung hero of the Bible. He courageously stands up against gods tyranny, evilness, and injustice.

So what do y'ins think of this statement?

He is also the master of deception.

As in, very good at lying.

As in, you fell for it.

quote:Originally posted by met_B_A_N_S:



So what do y'ins think of this statement?

troll

God is a psychopath really.

A petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

And then Jesus comes along and all is forgiven and perfect again and we can forget about God because.....he didn't REALLY mean any of that stuff in the old testament http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

quote:Originally posted by among_the_living:

God is a psychopath really.

A petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

And then Jesus comes along and all is forgiven and perfect again and we can forget about God because.....he didn't REALLY mean any of that stuff in the old testament http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

Read some Gnostic texts, and then the old testament over again. It's fairly easy to realize there is little consistency with the personality of "God" in the OT, and that he's not really the supreme, loving God.

It gets fairly confusing though...

I do agree that the God of the OT was one mother fucking bastard, though.

quote:Originally posted by Rizzo in a box:

Read some Gnostic texts, and then the old testament over again. It's fairly easy to realize there is little consistency with the personality of "God" in the OT, and that he's not really the supreme, loving God.

It gets fairly confusing though...

I do agree that the God of the OT was one mother fucking bastard, though.

That was my point, unless you didn't get it all those words I used to describe him fit perfectly.

And, I was being sarcastic about the Jesus thing, a lot of Christians try to cover up for God by pointing out Jesus and suddenly all the evil things god has done are ok

quote:Originally posted by among_the_living:

That was my point, unless you didn't get it all those words I used to describe him fit perfectly.

And, I was being sarcastic about the Jesus thing, a lot of Christians try to cover up for God by pointing out Jesus and suddenly all the evil things god has done are ok

God defines what is good and evil, not man. He has all the knowledge of everything. If he deems someone should die, what of it? So what if we think it seems evil, there are humans that think sex with boys is perfectly fine(NAMBLA).

How the hell do you know god has knowledge of everything?

He acts like and asshole, and assholes lie

They also like having people following them around, saying how great they are.

Do you see what i'm getting at here?

quote:Originally posted by among_the_living:



A petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.



You stole this from Dawkins.

quote:How the hell do you know god has knowledge of everything?



That's the definition of God. If it doesn't have complete knowledge it isn't God.

quote:He acts like and asshole, and assholes lie



Not really.

quote:They also like having people following them around, saying how great they are.



This is extremely true. It's talked about a lot in Gnostic texts.

quote:Originally posted by Frontier Psychiatrist:

Originally posted by among_the_living:



A petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.



You stole this from Dawkins.

Whether he stole it or not, does not change the validity of the statement

I do not believe that the Christian God or Satan exist, however if they did, neither of them would be worth worshiping.

quote:Originally posted by Frontier Psychiatrist:

Originally posted by among_the_living:



A petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.



You stole this from Dawkins.

christians stole there beliefs from jesus



[This message has been edited by boozehound420 (edited 12-01-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Rizzo in a box:

God defines what is good and evil, not man. He has all the knowledge of everything. If he deems someone should die, what of it? So what if we think it seems evil, there are humans that think sex with boys is perfectly fine(NAMBLA).

I love how you just excuse all the babies that would have had their lungs filled with water and died a horrific death in the flood (because I'm sure those babies were horrendous sinners!) by simply saying "if God says it, it's true, and who are you to question him?" This is why religion is dangerous.

[This message has been edited by Raw_Power (edited 12-01-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Raw_Power:

I love how you just excuse all the babies that would have had their lungs filled with water and died a horrific death in the flood (because I'm sure those babies were horrendous sinners!) by simply saying "if God says it, it's true, and who are you to question him?" This is why religion is dangerous.



Why is it dangerous? I wouldn't do any of those things. Besides, I highly doubt Noah's ark is a 100% true story, it's likely more of a metaphor mixed in with an actual great flood that happened. I don't believe everything in the Bible.

quote:Originally posted by Rizzo in a box:

Why is it dangerous? I wouldn't do any of those things. Besides, I highly doubt Noah's ark is a 100% true story, it's likely more of a metaphor mixed in with an actual great flood that happened. I don't believe everything in the Bible.

It's dangerous because there are those who do believe everything in the Bible and only follow the old testament. It's dangerous because there are those who will blindly follow preachers. It's dangerous because these blind followers with strong faith will do anything to please god and believe that if god says it's right, it's right.

Look at Scientology, they believe they can do anything to a certain type of non-scientologist, including kill him, because L. Ron Hubbard said it was morally ok so it must be! And those who blow themselves up for forty virgins.

Religion generally relies on faith. Faith discourages critical thinking and encourages blind following.



[This message has been edited by Raw_Power (edited 12-01-2006).]

quote:It's dangerous because there are those who do believe everything in the Bible



That's not a problem with religion, that's a problem with people blindly believing any authority. People do this with science as well.

quote:only follow the old testament.



Damn j00z. http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif)

quote:It's dangerous because there are those who will blindly follow preachers.



Once again, a matter of authority and not religion. Plenty of people blindly follow the government.

quote:It's dangerous because these blind followers with strong faith will do anything to please god and believe that if god says it's right, it's right.



Any amount of blindness is bad.

quote:Look at Scientology, they believe they can do anything to a certain type of non-scientologist, including kill him, because L. Ron Hubbard said it was morally ok so it must be!



Hah, Scientology.

quote:

Religion generally relies on faith. Faith discourages critical thinking and encourages blind following.

Everything is based on faith, to some degree. Either you have faith or you have no faith whatsoever(nihilism).

[This message has been edited by Rizzo in a box (edited 12-01-2006).]

I also remember my mother, a Christian, telling me a true story about a family whose boy was meant to have medication, but they had so much faith they believed a healer would cure him. They didn't give him his medication and phoned up the healer saying it's not working because he was getting worse. The healer simply said it won't work if you don't have faith and that you need to give Jesus time.

The boy died because he never got his medication.

quote:I also remember my mother, a Christian, telling me a true story about a family whose boy was meant to have medication, but they had so much faith they believed a healer would cure him. They didn't give him his medication and phoned up the healer saying it's not working because he was getting worse. The healer simply said it won't work if you don't have faith and that you need to give Jesus time.

The boy died because he never got his medication.



A sad case indeed. What is the relevance?

quote:That's not a problem with religion, that's a problem with people blindly believing any authority. People do this with science as well.

Yes, and God is an authority.

quote:Once again, a matter of authority and not religion. Plenty of people blindly follow the government.

God is an authority, once again.

quote:Any amount of blindness is bad.

I agree. And I know plenty, PLENTY, of religious people who pride themselves on their strong faith, which is nothing but blind acceptance. I dislike organised religion because it's baseless and based on faith, and faith to me is a disgusting, dangerous tool for controlling the masses.

quote:Originally posted by Rizzo in a box:

A sad case indeed. What is the relevance?

It shows the dangers of blind faith.



[This message has been edited by Raw_Power (edited 12-01-2006).]

quote:Yes, and God is an authority.



No, God is the authority. I should have clarified myself in my earlier post; all human authorities are bullshit. God, is by definition, all knowing. Humans are not. Therefore, only God is fit to make a judgement.

quote:God is an authority, once again.



See above.

quote:I agree. And I know plenty, PLENTY, of religious people who pride themselves on their strong faith, which is nothing but blind acceptance.



For the most part.

quote: I dislike organised religion because it's baseless and based on faith, and faith to me is a disgusting, dangerous tool for controlling the masses.



No, organized religion is based on money, power, control, domination, and evil. Organized religion has nothing to do with the original ideas of the religion.

quote:It shows the dangers of blind faith.



What is the difference between blind-faith and open-eye faith?

Tell me, do you believe in anything? At all?

quote:No, God is the authority. I should have clarified myself in my earlier post; all human authorities are bullshit. God, is by definition, all knowing. Humans are not. Therefore, only God is fit to make a judgement.

And that is what's so dangerous about God, him being THE authority. There's no evidence for a God, and loads of people have loads of different ideas of what God is. If people believe THE authority wants them to kill "sinners" and follows it on faith, then we're in trouble.

quote:Tell me, do you believe in anything? At all?

I believe in things I can see evidence for, that don't contradict, and that make logical sense.



[This message has been edited by Raw_Power (edited 12-01-2006).]

Don't use peoples' stupidity as a case against religion.

quote:And that is what's so dangerous about God, him being THE authority.



Why? You would rather have a human being an authority, instead of an all knowing being? Interesting.

quote:There's no evidence for a God,



I beg to differ, although that argument is one helluva an argument which I'm not really prepared to go into right now. If pressed though, I will go into it.

quote:and loads of people have loads of different ideas of what God is.



Scientists disagree on a number of things, too. Everyone sees things differently, that's the great part about life.

quote:If people believe THE authority wants them to kill "sinners" and follows it on faith, then we're in trouble.



Whoa now, you're mixing things up. Only God is allowed to judge who dies or not. That is NOT up to humans, and anyone who says otherwise is lying.

Let you who is sinless cast the first stone, and so forth.

quote:I believe in things I can see evidence for.



What constitutes evidence? Human perception?

quote:Why? You would rather have a human being an authority, instead of an all knowing being? Interesting.

With a human, you know he’s real and for the most part where he stands morally. And if he isn’t a man of faith, you can attempt to reason with him.

quote:I beg to differ, although that argument is one helluva an argument which I'm not really prepared to go into right now. If pressed though, I will go into it.

Don’t bother. I’ve heard it all before.

quote:Scientists disagree on a number of things, too. Everyone sees things differently, that's the great part about life.

Yes, but there’s a difference between differing opinions about the laws of physics and whether or not God thinks we should stone people to death.

quote:Whoa now, you're mixing things up. Only God is allowed to judge who dies or not. That is NOT up to humans, and anyone who says otherwise is lying.

That depends entirely on which God you believe. And let’s say you do believe that only God is allowed to judge. What if you believe that God has given you a specific list of rules and that if people fail to meet up to, let’s say, three of these rules they must be put to death. That’s blind faith, that’s dangerous.

quote:I believe in things I can see evidence for. Human perception?

I’m a pragmatist and an analytic philosopher, don’t start getting all Descartes on my ass. All we have is human perception and Descartes was terribly flawed. :-P

quote:With a human, you know he’s real and for the most part where he stands morally.



No, not really. So called conservative Christians turned out to be a bunch of pedophiles, homosexuals, and power hungry greedy mother fuckers.

quote: And if he isn’t a man of faith, you can attempt to reason with him.



Good luck with that.

quote:Don’t bother. I’ve heard it all before.



I thought so, too.

quote:Yes, but there’s a difference between differing opinions about the laws of physics and whether or not God thinks we should stone people to death.



Not really, the physical eventually meets the metaphysical. It's called quantum physics.

quote:That depends entirely on which God you believe.



You're right.

quote:And let’s say you do believe that only God is allowed to judge. What if you believe that God has given you a specific list of rules and that if people fail to meet up to, let’s say, three of these rules they must be put to death.



Then I wouldn't believe in that. And I don't.

quote:That’s blind faith, that’s dangerous.



You're right. That's not confined to religion, though.

quote:I’m a pragmatist and an analytic philosopher, don’t start getting all Descartes on my ass. All we have is human perception and Descartes was terribly flawed. :-P



I really don't give a shit what some dickhead philosopher said hundreds of years ago, I'm going by my own conclusion. I haven't read Descartes and I really have no urge to.

Human perception means shit, it's all based on assumptions and any psychedelic user will tell you that these assumptions are dissolved very easily.





[This message has been edited by Rizzo in a box (edited 12-01-2006).]

quote:Not really, the physical eventually meets the metaphysical. It's called quantum physics.

Meets the metaphysical? Metaphysics is the study of the universe, there's nothing magical about it. I hate that term being used out of place.

And there's not enough known about quantum mechanics to really comment on it yet. In fact, one of the leading quantum physicists said that it was currently practically "junk science" and far too many quacks misinterpret and abuse Quantum Mechanics for shit like astral projection.

quote:Meets the metaphysical? Metaphysics is the study of the universe, there's nothing magical about it. I hate that term being used out of place.



I'm using "meta" as in transcending (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=meta) and physics, as well, physics. Excuse me if I used it in a way that doesn't meet your standards.

quote:And there's not enough known about quantum mechanics to really comment on it yet.



But yet there's enough known about the universe for humans to make their own moral judgements?

quote:In fact, one of the leading quantum physicists said that it was currently practically "junk science" and far too many quacks misinterpret and abuse Quantum Mechanics for shit like astral projection.



Mind backing that up with a source?

To say we need to understand how the entire universe works to make moral judgments that only affect living creatures on earth is absurd. It is clear that in most cases murder is wrong, based on the Golden Rule, something which has been the belief of many religious and non-religious people and does not belong to any one religion but is found in practically all religions (including those pre-Christianity) and many moral philosophy (including the one I prescribe to: universal prescriptivism). Morality merely needs reasoning and empathy.

And this topic has gotten far too off topic. It’s about whether or not Satan is an alright guy.





[This message has been edited by Raw_Power (edited 12-01-2006).]

quote:To say we need to understand how the entire universe works to make moral judgments that only affect living creatures on earth is absurd.



Why? Do morals only apply to earth?

quote:It is clear that in most cases murder is wrong, based on the Golden Rule,



Yes, "most cases", here comes the relativity. When is murder okay? When the government says so? When it feels right? For revenge?

quote:something which has been the belief of many religious and non-religious people and does not belong to any one religion but is found in practically all religions (including those pre-Christianity) and many moral philosophy (including the one I prescribe to: universal prescriptivism).



The fact that the golden rule is present in almost all religions just bolsters my faith in God. He's just shown himself in different ways to different people.

quote:Morality merely needs reasoning and empathy.



Agreed.

quote:And this topic has gotten far too off topic. It’s about whether or not Satan is an alright guy.



Who cares if it goes off topic?

quote:Why? Do morals only apply to earth?

We haven't detected aliens, and morals only apply to living beings.

quote:Yes, "most cases", here comes the relativity. When is murder okay? When the government says so? When it feels right? For revenge?

There was a man who shot a famous guitarist on stage and then went on a killing spree, they had to shoot him to stop him. Killing is never wholly right, but it was right enough then. You see, things aren't black and white. You may want them to be, but they're not.

quote:The fact that the golden rule is present in almost all religions just bolsters my faith in God. He's just shown himself in different ways to different people.

Awesome baseless facts. I could just say it's the "underlying collective conscious of man", it'd make as much sense as yours. Maybe people just used their noggins and realized that if they should treat others like they want to be treated?

quote:Who cares if it goes off topic?

The person who made the thread.

[This message has been edited by Raw_Power (edited 12-01-2006).]

quote:We haven't detected aliens,



Heheheh, are you sure? Although that discussion would belong in PD.

quote:morals only apply to living beings.



Says who? And what defines living? Human beings have set up standards for what constitutes living, but what if we're wrong? What if rocks really do have feelings, too?

quote:There was a man who shot a famous guitarist on stage and then went on a killing spree, they had to shoot him to stop him. Killing is never wholly right, but it was right enough then. You see, things aren't black and white. You may want them to be, but they're not.



Who says they had to kill him? If they can tranquilize large animals, they can tranquilize serial killers. And please, answer my questions.

quote:Awesome baseless facts. I could just say it's the "underlying collective conscious of man", it'd make as much sense as yours. Maybe people just used their noggins and realized that if they should treat others like they want to be treated?



Possibly.

quote:The person who made the thread.



Well, we'll take it else where once he speaks up, okay?

quote:Says who? And what defines living? Human beings have set up standards for what constitutes living, but what if we're wrong? What if rocks really do have feelings, too?

Right, that's what groups like green peace are for. Trees are living, growing things.

quote:Who says they had to kill him? If they can tranquilize large animals, they can tranquilize serial killers. And please, answer my questions.

I am answering your questions. I saw the footage. They had no tranqs, only a shotgun, and the guy, even though held down, continued to shoot wildly.

quote:Right, that's what groups like green peace are for. Trees are living, growing things.



Still didn't answer my question.

quote:I am answering your questions. I saw the footage. They had no tranqs, only a shotgun, and the guy, even though held down, continued to shoot wildly.



Well maybe the police should be equipped with tranqs instead of shotguns then, hmm?

I promise you that with the right chemical cocktail, even a crazed man will go down. Hell, just shoot him up with enough fentanyl to make him OD so that he passes out, and then reverse the OD with narcan. After that you can rehabilitate him.

OK. What about WW2. Do you agree then with Ghandi that the English should have sat down and allowed the Nazis to take over?

And I have answered your question. It is clear that a rock is an inanimate object. Do you want us to start making moral rules for everything, including water now? I’ve not seen one rule in religion that states we need to protect the rocks. Until you prove to me a rock is a living being, I have no reason to believe it is. What you're saying comes off as incredibly absurd and grasping at straws.

[This message has been edited by Raw_Power (edited 12-02-2006).]

I've thought about it a bit recently, and find that the Holy Bible could function just as easily for someone who wants to "worship" Satan.

Satan does kills and hurts far less people in the Bible than God does and he helped us to gain knowledge and know what was going on in Eden when God was being a vindictive prick. God's wrath is portrayed so strongly in the Bible that Satan's work as being 'evil' is largely absent. Other than references and depictions of Hell (given to humans from the biased perspective of God) Satan really does very, very little harm.... It's strange.

quote:Originally posted by Iam:

I've thought about it a bit recently, and find that the Holy Bible could function just as easily for someone who wants to "worship" Satan.

Satan does kills and hurts far less people in the Bible than God does and he helped us to gain knowledge and know what was going on in Eden when God was being a vindictive prick. God's wrath is portrayed so strongly in the Bible that Satan's work as being 'evil' is largely absent. Other than references and depictions of Hell (given to humans from the biased perspective of God) Satan really does very, very little harm.... It's strange.

Also, some people believe that Satan isn't punishing you in hell, he is suffering with you in hell.

Quite a few people see Satan as the unsung hero of the Bible, and that the Bible is filled with propaganda against Satan because God was pissed Satan was going to overthrow his tyranny.

quote:OK. What about WW2. Do you agree then with Ghandi that the English should have sat down and allowed the Nazis to take over?

WWII would be an INSANE issue to discuss because I'm not even sure that we know WHY exactly the different factions went into war. Therefore I can't really comment.

quote:And I have answered your question. It is clear that a rock is an inanimate object. Do you want us to start making moral rules for everything, including water now? I’ve not seen one rule in religion that states we need to protect the rocks. Until you prove to me a rock is a living being, I have no reason to believe it is. What you're saying comes off as incredibly absurd and grasping at straws.



What I'm saying is, who and why gets to determine what's living, and who and why gets to determine what is moral?

quote:WWII would be an INSANE issue to discuss because I'm not even sure that we know WHY exactly the different factions went into war. Therefore I can't really comment.

That's some nice skimming you did there.

quote:Originally posted by Rizzo in a box:

What I'm saying is, who and why gets to determine what's living, and who and why gets to determine what is moral?

I can't possibly answer that because there is no answer. To say a being that people have variant views of, might not even exist, and might have some very malicious "morals" makes the rules is absurd. People can't even proof 100% that it exists, yet alone whether it is moral and what it's morals are. And it's quite obvious that most, including you, appear to pick and choose what parts of their religion they want to believe in and alter it.

I, personally, think morals are prescriptive. They're not verifiable in that they're not Imperialistic. They're prescriptions prescribed to actions based on emotion and reasoning and societies morals either come through force or through consensus.

[This message has been edited by Raw_Power (edited 12-02-2006).]

To Zman: If you knew me, like many of the posters I am close to, then you would know I am not a troll.

The the posters or this thread : I meant to provide additional information on how this quote came about from my friend, who is a staunch Atheist, albeit sarcastic, is one of the most intelligent people I know. Not to imply that Atheists in general are intelligent, but I find that sarcasm and logic of this undeniably true. Though the same can be said by God, or any other "Just" or "Good" character in the Bible.

For a background on myself: I have been raised Catholic, and I guess I could still be considered one, as I still semi-regularly attend mass. I attend, mostly because I do not want to conflict with my family, especially my Grandparents and Great Uncle, who are the 3 most important people in my life. But, I do know I've lost my faith in Catholicism, and Christianity in general. Actually, I would probably extended that to almost all religions I am aware of. I feel I would rather live a lifestyle that would promote good-will and the betterment of Homo Sapiens as a whole. I do feel the need to acknowledge the belief of a higher being, as it gives me some kind of comfort, though I have questioned his/hers/its existence before. Its like my religious security blanket.

:::EDIT:::

Rizzo, if you neglect to read the passages above, I just would like you to know that is not my opinion.

[This message has been edited by met_B_A_N_S (edited 12-02-2006).]

quote:That's some nice skimming you did there.



What? I'm sorry, I'm too ignorant and possess to little knowledge to argue about WWII.

quote:I can't possibly answer that because there is no answer. To say a being that people have variant views of, might not even exist, and might have some very malicious "morals" makes the rules is absurd. People can't even proof 100% that it exists, yet alone whether it is moral and what it's morals are. And it's quite obvious that most, including you, appear to pick and choose what parts of their religion they want to believe in and alter it.



I pick the parts that make sense to me and back it up. Really, as long as you go along with the general idea nothing else matters.

So, if you can't answer what determines morals, do morals exist at all? And if not, what justification do we have for anything?

quote:I, personally, think morals are prescriptive. They're not verifiable in that they're not Imperialistic. They're prescriptions prescribed to actions based on emotion and reasoning and societies morals either come through force or through consensus.



So basically morals just go with the ebb and flow of what society deems as okay? Therefore in reality either nothing or everything is okay. Back to nihilism.

quote:

Rizzo, if you neglect to read the passages above, I just would like you to know that is not my opinion.



Duly noted, although I did read it.

Morals are as subjective as your taste in foods: no two people have the same right and wrong.

Morality is loaded. There's Mercy, and there's Resentment (essentially, will you hold petty differences against someone?) - the rest is pure subjective bullshit that you've been brainwashed into...simple tools you use to justify your resentments when personal, group, or societal catharsis can only be found through mercy.

Satan, in the Bible, held a resentment because he wasn't the one chosen to save the world. He chooses to suffer by continuing to hold onto his pride. God was always quick to anger, quick to act, and quick to forgive when sorrow finally befell his stubborn shit-head offspring - he held mercy.

Yes, normative ethics do exist. Virtue ethics, utilitarianism, and deontological ethics do exist. Divine ethics, I don't know.

But listen, just because things are a little murky doesn't mean we should resign to nihilism. Just because morals come from within us and not some man in the sky, doesn't mean we should resign to nihilism. Morals are guidances to help us better our lives.

We don’t have to have some divine command to be moral, all we need is the craving to improve the world to make it a better place for everyone. Yes, things are a little more murky when they’re not black and white, as I said. But that’s no reason to believing in a god that is impossible to prove (in my opinion) 100%, impossible to know which religion if any religion is the correct one, and what the correct morals of that god is IF it has any morals.

I, personally, apply R.M. Hare's universal prescriptivism to my life:

quote:In a series of books, especially The Language of Morals, Freedom and Reason, and Moral Thinking, Hare gave shape to a theory that he called universal prescriptivism. According to this, moral terms such as 'good', 'ought' and 'right' have two logical or semantic properties: universalizability and prescriptivity. By the former, he meant that moral judgments must identify the situation they describe according to a finite set of universal terms, excluding proper names, but not definite descriptions. By the latter, he meant that moral agents must perform those acts they consider themselves to have an obligation to perform whenever they are physically and psychologically able to do so. In other words, he argued that it made no sense for someone to say, sincerely: "I ought to do X," and then fail to do X. This was identified as a major flaw in Hare's system, as it appeared to take no account of akrasia, or weakness of the will. Jordan Whyatt also offered many influential ideas on this topic.

Hare argued that the combination of universalizability and prescriptivity leads to a certain form of consequentialism, namely, preference utilitarianism.

[edit] Example

An example of Hare's argument would be this:

Supposing you require a large sum of money, and you ask a friend to lend it to you. She refuses. You claim that it is wrong for her to refuse. 'Wrong' is a moral term, so, according to Hare, you must abide by its logical properties. The first property, universalizability, demands that you formulate a description of the situation using only universal terms. So you say:

Whenever I ask a friend for a large sum of money, it is wrong for her to refuse to give it to me.

But this violates the universalizability requirement, insofar as the description contains the terms 'I' and 'me,' which do not designate a universal property, but denote an individual instead. So you try again:

Whenever someone asks a friend for a large sum of money, it is wrong for them to refuse the request.

This new description satisfies the universalizability requirement, because all its terms are universal. Now your description must also satisfy the second requirement, that of prescriptivity. That is, you must determine whether you are willing to act on the universal formulation.

At first, you might argue that it does not apply to you. If you consider it wrong for your friend to refuse to lend you a large sum of money, it is your friend, not you, who should be acting accordingly.

However — and here is where the two properties combine and the philosophically interesting results appear — universalizability requires that the same judgment be made, and prescriptivity that the same action be taken, irrespective of your particular position in the situation. In other words, just as you had to deprive the description of its particular (non-universal) terms, it is now impossible for you to exclude yourself from the possibility of being in the situation that your friend was in. According to universalizability, if you were not the one asking for money, but the one who was being asked, the same moral judgment — that whenever someone asks a friend for a large sum of money, it is wrong for them to refuse the request — ought to apply; and, according to the rule of prescriptivity, you would have to act accordingly.

If you were not prepared to act accordingly, you would be violating this rule; and in fact you wouldn't be uttering a moral judgment at all, according to Hare.

To re-enter the moral discourse, you would have to modify your original judgment so that, once universalized, you would still be able to act in the way it would ask you to act. By a series of universal conjectures and prescriptive refutations — akin to philosopher Karl Popper's falsificationism (see Freedom and Reason, chapter 4) — you would eventually arrive at the right moral judgment, which would be the one you would prefer in all the possible situations.

In each case, however, one cannot simply put oneself in another's shoes, as it were, one must also adopt the universal properties of the perspectives of the other person. Universal prescriptivism, thus, leads to preference utilitarianism. And so, according to Hare, does Kantianism: to demand, as Kant's first formulation of the categorical imperative does, that you could will that your maxim be a universal law, is to ask the moral agent to prescribe the judgment that she could accept were she in any of the positions involved, which of course is exactly Hare's point.

[edit] Importance of specificity

Hare departs from Kant's view that only the most general maxims of conduct be used (for example, "do not steal"), but the consequences ignored, when applying the categorical imperative. To ignore consequences leads to absurdity: for example, that it would be wrong to steal a terrorist's plans to blow up a nuclear facility. All the specific facts of a circumstance must be considered, and these include probable consequences. They also include the relevant, universal properties of the facts: for example, the psychological states of those involved.

[edit] Relativism

Hare was resigned to the idea that the content of moral propositions could not be shown to be subject to truth conditions, and, therefore, could not be subject to objective, universal standards of truth. While this suggests that moral relativists have the upper hand from a foundational standpoint, Hare said they were mistaken in one important respect: all moral propositions and arguments are subject to at least one universal standard, namely, logic. According to Hare, this fact also makes moral discourse intelligible.



[This message has been edited by Raw_Power (edited 12-02-2006).]

if I could quote neitchze (sp)

"god is dead"

I read all that, and it essentially came to 'The Golden-Rule'.

I much follow the idea of universal prescriptivism...though when people violate my morals, I still see myself as having an obligation of my own (and this is the primary ideal I hold) to let it go; to give another chance no matter how many times they've fallen short; to show mercy no matter how alluring the idea of harboring hatred for a person may seem.

And you should know that I'm only nihilist by the definition that teeters on anarchism.

If you believe in the Bible, he freed man from ignorance and stupidity that God had them in.

Then again if you believe ignorance is bliss than he is evil.

If I believed in the Bible I would be a fan of Satan.

** Deuce Omen

quote:Originally posted by DeuceOmen:

If I believed in the Bible I would be a fan of Satan.

I can see that.

And a person can relate to satan.

He represents the underdog, or the rebel, that all of us have inside. You can read the story and see yourself in satan's position.

How can you relate go god?

Supposedly, always perfect, always right, and any problems he has, not only did he create for himself, but he gets to punish someone else for them. The bible's god is the ultimate asshole boss.

quote:Originally posted by Viraljimmy:

I can see that.

And a person can relate to satan.

He represents the underdog, or the rebel, that all of us have inside. You can read the story and see yourself in satan's position.

How can you relate go god?

Supposedly, always perfect, always right, and any problems he has, not only did he create for himself, but he gets to punish someone else for them. The bible's god is the ultimate asshole boss.

I like you.

** Deuce Omen

God discriminates. You don't have to love Satan to get into Hell. I think God was all, "You must worship me to get to heaven!" and Satan was all "Why can't we just let everyone in?", and that's what got him kicked out of heaven.



Who stepped on who in the garden? Satan was spreading happiness, and God killed his ass.

Anyone Know of a website that has every quote from every religious book that mentions Satan?

** Deuce Omen

Edit: Found One http://www.carelinks.net/books/dh/dbb/2-3satanindex.htm

[This message has been edited by DeuceOmen (edited 12-03-2006).]

Satan's only power (bestowed upon him by God) is that of persuation...

I don't see how he can ever be "good" based on that, he can only inspire good, at some level.

Which he basically doesn't do.

This is talking from a Biblical standpoint, mind, I don't really believe in Satan as anything other than a manifestation of human potential, and how it can result in selfish assholeness at times...

Amusingly, this is what the OT God seems like, a real spoiled brat...

god...satan...makes no difference to me.

The force is where its at!! haha just kidding.

quote:Originally posted by Rizzo in a box:

He is also the master of deception.

As in, very good at lying.

As in, you fell for it.

Or.... maby you fell for it, and your god is actuly satan?

i doubt that anyone will reply to that post( whenver i say it i get ignored)

quote:Originally posted by perfect chaos:

Or.... maby you fell for it, and your god is actuly satan?

i doubt that anyone will reply to that post( whenver i say it i get ignored)

Or maybe it's a book written by men and has no bearing on anything in reality? Maybe God can't be defined by a book?

Something a great mind wrote many centuries ago:

"The tao that can be named is not the eternal tao. The tao that can be understood is not the eternal tao."

There are so many philosophies, religions, beliefs, sciences etc in this world that all attempt to define and comprehend. Now, we can define many things, and we can understand many things...but I think we will always be lacking some vital knowledge of this existence. I find it hard to take anyone serious who thinks they have 'it' figured out.

As do i, it seems pointless to me. i was just pointing out the stupidity of that comment.

i applaud you for replying to me but im curious was that meant to be an insulting type reply or was it just you pointing something out.

quote:Originally posted by Rizzo in a box:

He is also the master of deception.

As in, very good at lying.

As in, you fell for it.

Or is it the other way around? think about that one.

quote:Originally posted by Rizzo in a box:

He is also the master of deception.

As in, very good at lying.

As in, you fell for it.

ROFL

El Diablo is the unsung hero of Milton's works, but I wouldn't exactly say he's the hero of the Bible.

From my understanding of the Bible, nobody likes him in the Old Testament, he gets Job in a world of hurt, he gets mankind kicked out of Eden, etc, and he's just a pain in the ass to Jesus and the rest of mankind. He isn't doing anyone a favour, I wouldn't call him a 'hero'.

Also, if you assume he and Beelzebub are the same being, then he's Lord of the Flies. Flies are fucking annoying. 'Nuff said.

quote:Originally posted by perfect chaos:

As do i, it seems pointless to me. i was just pointing out the stupidity of that comment.

i applaud you for replying to me but im curious was that meant to be an insulting type reply or was it just you pointing something out.

It was me typing out my thoughts; if they insult you, so be it...just thoughts though.

quote:Originally posted by Hexadecimal:

It was me typing out my thoughts; if they insult you, so be it...just thoughts though.

Na it dosnt insult me, it just seemed that it was a reply to my post.

God dont exist motherfucker.

Don't believe everything you read in the Bible. Divorce was a sin until King James changed it.

God is the universe. God gives back to you, what you give it.

http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

If Satan punishes bad people, then why exactly is he so bad? Besides, he really doesn't have a choice but to do what he does, so really God is the evil one.

Raw_Power > Rizzo in a Box

quote:Originally posted by Rizzo in a box:

He is also the master of deception.

As in, very good at lying.

As in, you fell for it.

This has been bugging me, where in the bible does it actually say Satan is in hell? I was under the impression that he kinda wandered around earth. He accosts Jesus in the desert, tempts Adam and Eve in the garden, he wouldn't have been able to do any of that if he were stuck in hell. Heck, I've never even seen a bible verse mentioning an angel getting kicked out of heaven period.

Metbans your so goth you must shit bats!

quote:Originally posted by Rizzo in a box:

He is also the master of deception.

As in, very good at lying.

As in, you fell for it.

I might've talked to him. http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif)

are ouija boards bad rizzo? anyone know?

- efex

quote:He is also the master of deception.

As in, very good at lying.

As in, you fell for it.

quote:Or is it the other way around? think about that one.

I'd love to see Rizzo's reply to this.

quote:Originally posted by Raw_Power:

I'd love to see Rizzo's reply to this.

that would be interesting raw.

I wanna see. http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)

- efex

aah, the internet. home of such wonderful things as porn, shmexperts, and angry minorities who insist on equal treatment despite the fact that their idea of equal treatment is roughly the same as royal treatment to the majority.

thank you all and God bless, you really make my day.

An objective analysis - who has killed more - Satan or God? http://tinyurl.com/kvedl

For you visual thinkers: http://i14.tinypic.com/2rom42u.png

quote:Originally posted by met_B_A_N_S:

Satan is the unsung hero of the Bible. He courageously stands up against gods tyranny, evilness, and injustice.

So what do y'ins think of this statement?

Bigotry is an intersting concept. It seems it all depends on ones perspective as to what is right or wrong. Bigotry is indifferent to defining the difference between what is right or wrong in anything.

What you are talking about is the conflict between views. Depending on which side you stand on depends on your bigoted view.

With that in mind I can only ask why you think good is bad and why bad is good?

Hate is considered an evil thing - however, it is also said that God hates thieves, murderers, liars, etc. However, I'm sure a liar, thief and murderer believe they are right and God is wrong.

Interesting is all I can say.



[This message has been edited by Interest (edited 12-11-2006).]

God's Mistake was creating Lucifer to begin with. Now, we must deal with God's Mistake, one way, or the other http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)