Reuters: US ambassador to Libya dead

[jimmy olsen]

It's like taking a moral stand against gravity.

No, it's like taking a moral stand against a cruel, totalitarian despot.

But not exactly.  A despot is just a man who thinks he's a god.  A true god really is better than any man, or all men.  A god is totalitarian by his nature. because he is all that is.  A god is cruel by his nature, because he defines what is and isn't just.  When you're the universe, and it conforms to your whim, no man is fit to judge you.

Taking a stand where you can't make any difference and where your punishment will be unending isn't noble or brave.  It's madness.

Isn't that how Ancient Greek religion worked? All their Gods were dicks, and they knew it, but they worshiped them anyways in order to avoid punishment.

[garbon]

Sigh.  No.  One does not need to believe in predestination to think that rebelling against God is a bad idea.  Jake already doesn't believe in God, so it's a moot point.  His reasoning strikes me as bizarre though, God will reward me if I do the opposite of what he says because I'm staying true to my own moral code that I just made up.

Yeah it's hard to tell if he's being serious.

[dps]

It's like taking a moral stand against gravity.

No, it's like taking a moral stand against a cruel, totalitarian despot.

But not exactly.  A despot is just a man who thinks he's a god.  A true god really is better than any man, or all men.  A god is totalitarian by his nature. because he is all that is.  A god is cruel by his nature, because he defines what is and isn't just.  When you're the universe, and it conforms to your whim, no man is fit to judge you.

Taking a stand where you can't make any difference and where your punishment will be unending isn't noble or brave.  It's madness.

Isn't that how Ancient Greek religion worked? All their Gods were dicks, and they knew it, but they worshiped them anyways in order to avoid punishment.

We don't have complete information on Greek ideas about the afterlife, but what we do have suggests that it was believed to a pretty dreary place at best regardless of how virtuous or immoral you had been in life.  The Greeks seemed to worship their gods more to avoid being killed and sent to the afterlife sooner than expected than to receive any reward there.

[DGuller]

If God wanted us to believe in his existence, he wouldn't have given us free will.

[PDH]

We don't have complete information on Greek ideas about the afterlife, but what we do have suggests that it was believed to a pretty dreary place at best regardless of how virtuous or immoral you had been in life.  The Greeks seemed to worship their gods more to avoid being killed and sent to the afterlife sooner than expected than to receive any reward there.

That sounds a bit more Ancient Middle Eastern than Greek.  Sure, the Greek Gods were dicks at times, but they also extended protection and gave aid - even if they also had a pretty severe desire to enforce traditional mores.  While the afterlife seems to have been dull, the gods were not always the evil 10 year olds that the Sumerians seemed to have feared.

[garbon]

If God wanted us to believe in his existence, he wouldn't have given us free will.

Not sure what this statement has to do with anything.

[Martinus]

Seems to me that if you believed a god exists and you think a god is monstrous, you'd be better served by obeying.

Screw that.

Really? I mean I guess one could take some sort of moral stand but it seems like one would want to avoid the wrath of said god which would likely be incurred by ignoring the god's commands.

Are you that uneducated? That dilemma is one of the most common motifs in the Western philosophical and artistic thought, yet you are acting as if the idea was a novel one. 

[Martinus]

Seems to me that if you believed a god exists and you think a god is monstrous, you'd be better served by obeying.

Screw that.

That's easy for you to say, coming from a place where we've disproved the existence of gods.

"Better to rule in hell than serve in heaven" is not the stance of an atheist.

[Razgovory]

Seems to me that if you believed a god exists and you think a god is monstrous, you'd be better served by obeying.

Screw that.

Really? I mean I guess one could take some sort of moral stand but it seems like one would want to avoid the wrath of said god which would likely be incurred by ignoring the god's commands.

Are you that uneducated? That dilemma is one of the most common motifs in the Western philosophical and artistic thought, yet you are acting as if the idea was a novel one. 

Says the bumpkin to the Stanford grad.

[Martinus]

It's like taking a moral stand against gravity.

No, it's like taking a moral stand against a cruel, totalitarian despot.

Would appear an irrelevant moral stand as you'd have no hope of making change. Even if everyone stood up, said god could just wipe you all out and start fresh.

So according to you a moral stand is justified only when it is effective? Where did you learn your morals, son? From Ayn Rand?

[Martinus]

Well, so far I'm not being punished

I'd reconsider if I were you. You are arguing with Razgovory and garbon.

If hell is other people, Languish is its ninth circle.

[garbon]

So according to you a moral stand is justified only when it is effective? Where did you learn your morals, son? From Ayn Rand?

When there is a non-zero chance of effectiveness? Sure.  I mean we aren't talking about something like civil rights where even the failings of early moral stands eventually culminate in the overthrow of an established awful system.  There is no chance of overthrowing this hypothetical god, so why flail about hopelessly?  In fact, it seems like it'd be an act of extreme hubris to suggest that one's own moral code was correct even while lorded over by this god that said otherwise.

[Eddie Teach]

I'd reconsider if I were you. You are arguing with Razgovory and garbon.

Look at it another way, he could be arguing with Grumbler and Berkut.

[Valmy]

When there is a non-zero chance of effectiveness? Sure.  I mean we aren't talking about something like civil rights where even the failings of early moral stands eventually culminate in the overthrow of an established awful system.  There is no chance of overthrowing this hypothetical god, so why flail about hopelessly?  In fact, it seems like it'd be an act of extreme hubris to suggest that one's own moral code was correct even while lorded over by this god that said otherwise.

Well you could find another God.  Plenty are out there.

[garbon]

Well you could find another God.  Plenty are out there.

Maybe I'm missing something (as a not particularly religious person) but I don't think you get to pick and choose your gods.  You either believe in them or you don't, no? I thought we were discussing a case where you truly believe that a) a god exists and b) that god is monstrous.