Jump to content

 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Sign in to follow this  
Sukhov

Euthyphro religious dilemma

Recommended Posts

How do the religious posters here argue against the Euthyphro dilemma?

ccb8ee34dc10347e044cafcba4ae03fd.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Sukhov said:

How do the religious posters here argue against the Euthyphro dilemma?

ccb8ee34dc10347e044cafcba4ae03fd.jpg

 

Only need to look back on societies that left God out of the equation.

Pol Pot's Cambodia

FF3CE5B8-9908-493D-9F05-2F34892776C2_cy1

 

Nazi Germany

sf-Holocaust.jpg?itok=U9UT88AK

 

1101870608_400.jpg?w=600&quality=85

 

 

ancient Rome

maxresdefault.jpg

 

Russia under Stalin

main-qimg-42760ba0fcbc3ae9a89e75f9609907

TELEMMGLPICT000174172241_trans++-cZgJ2M1

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, hamradio said:

 

Only need to look back on societies that left God out of the equation.

 

And no crimes in the name of the various Gods throughout history?   There have been centuries of war based solely upon religion.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, hamradio said:

 

Only need to look back on societies that left God out of the equation.

Pol Pot's Cambodia

FF3CE5B8-9908-493D-9F05-2F34892776C2_cy1

 

Nazi Germany

sf-Holocaust.jpg?itok=U9UT88AK

 

1101870608_400.jpg?w=600&quality=85

 

 

ancient Rome

maxresdefault.jpg

 

Russia under Stalin

main-qimg-42760ba0fcbc3ae9a89e75f9609907

TELEMMGLPICT000174172241_trans++-cZgJ2M1

AMERICA under White Christians

Amherst and Smallpox

Colonel Henry Bouquet to General Amherst, dated 13 July 1763, - suggests in a postscript the distribution of blankets to "inoculate the Indians";
Amherst to Bouquet, dated 16 July 1763, - approves this plan in a postscript and suggests as well as "to try Every other method that can serve to Extirpate this Execrable Race." (This postcript spans two pages.)

These letters also discuss the use of dogs to hunt the Indians, the so-called "Spaniard's Method," which Amherst approves in principle, but says he cannot implement because there are not enough dogs. In a letter dated 26 July 1763, Bouquet acknowledges Amherst's approval and writes, "all your Directions will be observed."

Historian Francis Parkman, in his book The Conspiracy of Pontiac and the Indian War after the Conquest of Canada [Boston: Little, Brown, 1886] refers to a postscript in an earlier letter from Amherst to Bouquet wondering whether smallpox could not be spread among the Indians:

Could it not be contrived to send the Small Pox among those disaffected tribes of Indians? We must on this occasion use every stratagem in our power to reduce them. 
I have not found this letter, but there is a letter from Bouquet to Amherst, dated 23 June 1763, [189k] three weeks before the discussion of blankets to the Indians, stating that Captain Ecuyer at Fort Pitt (to which Bouquet would be heading with reinforcements) has reported smallpox in the Fort. This indicates at least that the writers knew the plan could be carried out.

It is curious that the specific plans to spread smallpox were relegated to postscripts. I leave it to the reader to ponder the significance of this.

Several other letters from the summer of 1763 show the smallpox idea was not an anomaly. The letters are filled with comments that indicate a genocidal intent, with phrases such as:
"...that Vermine ... have forfeited all claim to the rights of humanity" (Bouquet to Amherst, 25 June) [149k]
"I would rather chuse the liberty to kill any Savage...." (Bouquet to Amherst, 25 June) [121k]
"...Measures to be taken as would Bring about the Total Extirpation of those Indian Nations" (Amherst to Sir William Johnson, Superintendent of the Northern Indian Department, 9 July) [229k]
"...their Total Extirpation is scarce sufficient Attonement...." (Amherst to George Croghan, Deputy Agent for Indian Affairs, 7 August) [145k]
"...put a most Effectual Stop to their very Being" (Amherst to Johnson, 27 August [292k]; emphasis in original).
Amherst's correspondence during this time includes many letters on routine matters, such as officers who are sick or want to be relieved of duty; accounts of provisions on hand, costs for supplies, number of people garrisoned; negotiations with provincial governors (the army is upset with the Pennsylvania assembly, for example, for refusing to draft men for service); and so on. None of these other letters show a deranged mind or an obsession with cruelty. Amherst's venom was strictly reserved for Indians.  (Peter d'Errico)

 

Wounded Knee - 12-29-1890

U.S. Soldiers putting Lakota corpses in common grave

The Wounded Knee Massacre, also called the Battle of Wounded Knee, was a domestic massacre of several hundred Lakota people, almost half of whom were women and children, by soldiers of the United States Army. It occurred on December 29, 1890,[5] near Wounded Knee Creek (Lakota: Čhaŋkpé Ópi Wakpála) on the Lakota Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in the U.S. state of South Dakota, following a botched attempt to disarm the Lakota camp.

The previous day, a detachment of the U.S. 7th Cavalry Regiment commanded by Major Samuel M. Whitside intercepted Spotted Elk's band of Miniconjou Lakota and 38 Hunkpapa Lakota near Porcupine Butte and escorted them 5 miles (8.0 km) westward to Wounded Knee Creek, where they made camp. The remainder of the 7th Cavalry Regiment, led by Colonel James W. Forsyth, arrived and surrounded the encampment. The regiment was supported by a battery of four Hotchkiss mountain guns.[6]

On the morning of December 29, the U.S. Cavalry troops went into the camp to disarm the Lakota. One version of events claims that during the process of disarming the Lakota, a deaf tribesman named Black Coyote was reluctant to give up his rifle, claiming he had paid a lot for it.[7] Simultaneously, an old man was performing a ritual called the Ghost Dance. Black Coyote's rifle went off at that point, and the U.S. army began shooting at the Native Americans. The Lakota warriors fought back, but many had already been stripped of their guns and disarmed.[8]

By the time the massacre was over, more than 250 men, women, and children of the Lakota had been killed and 51 were wounded (4 men and 47 women and children, some of whom died later); some estimates placed the number of dead as high as 300.[3] Twenty-five soldiers also died, and thirty-nine were wounded (six of the wounded later died).[9] Twenty soldiers were awarded the Medal of Honor.[10] In 2001, the National Congress of American Indians passed two resolutions condemning the military awards and called on the U.S. government to rescind them.[11]

The Wounded Knee Battlefield, site of the massacre, has been designated a National Historic Landmark by the U.S. Department of the Interior.[5] In 1990, both houses of the U.S. Congress passed a resolution on the historical centennial formally expressing "deep regret" for the massacre.[12]

Wounded Knee Massacre: State-Sponsored Terrorism, Made in America ...

The 1921 Tulsa Race Massacre

Black smoke billows from fires during the race riot of 1921 in Tulsa, Oklahoma.

Tulsa was the site in one of the worst domestic terrorist attacks ever perpetrated on U.S. soil. Deemed the Black Wall Street of America by Booker T. Washington, the Greenwood District boasted 36 square blocks of black economic progress just 58 years after the emancipation of their ancestors. In one night the neighborhood was pillaged and set ablaze, its people massacred. A rumor that a young black man had assaulted a white woman in an elevator provoked enough white Tulsans to turn to racial violence. When the ashes settled and the smoke cleared, charred bodies littered the streets of a ruined community that seemed nearly impossible to rebuild in the shadow of the Jim Crow era. According to a state-commissioned report released in 2001, upwards of 300 people are thought to have died during the massacre.

Historians believe as many as 300 black people were killed. Much of Greenwood was burned to the ground. The mob, “some of them government agents,” destroyed 35 square blocks of Greenwood, according to the 2001 report. The destruction included more than 1,250 homes, churches, schools, businesses, a hospital and a library.

Survivors reported that bodies were tossed in the Arkansas River or loaded onto trains, making it difficult to count the dead. In 1998, city and state officials began investigating the claims of mass graves in Tulsa.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Who ever said the people involved in those crimes against humanity were Christian? :(

Edited by hamradio
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the biggest myths spouted by some is the United States is a Christian country.  It has NEVER been in any sense of the word religiously, politically.  The word Christian is used too loosely.  Very FEW follows the teachings.

Is America a Christian Nation?

https://ffrf.org/component/k2/item/23731-is-america-a-christian-nation

Excerpt..

 

The U.S. Constitution is a secular document. It begins, "We the people," and contains no mention of "God" or "Christianity." Its only references to religion are exclusionary, such as, "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust" (Art. VI), and "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" (First Amendment). The presidential oath of office, the only oath detailed in the Constitution, does not contain the phrase "so help me God" or any requirement to swear on a bible (Art. II, Sec. 1). If we are a Christian nation, why doesn't our Constitution say so?

In 1797, America made a treaty with Tripoli, declaring that "the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." This reassurance to Islam was written during Washington's presidency, and approved by the Senate under John Adams.

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No God. No dilemma. The Nazis didn't leave God out of the equation, though their Christianity

was likely a most unorthodox one. The Roman Republic and the early Roman Empire existed

before the good news of Jesus was available, so they deserve a pass. Morality is a combination

of one's upbringing, the society in which one lives, and the time and place in which one lives,

and other factors. So it is mostly a subjective and contingent matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, hamradio said:

One of the biggest myths spouted by some is the United States is a Christian country.  It has NEVER been in any sense of the word religiously, politically.  The word Christian is used too loosely.  Very FEW follows the teachings.

Is America a Christian Nation?

https://ffrf.org/component/k2/item/23731-is-america-a-christian-nation

Excerpt..

 

The U.S. Constitution is a secular document. It begins, "We the people," and contains no mention of "God" or "Christianity." Its only references to religion are exclusionary, such as, "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust" (Art. VI), and "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" (First Amendment). The presidential oath of office, the only oath detailed in the Constitution, does not contain the phrase "so help me God" or any requirement to swear on a bible (Art. II, Sec. 1). If we are a Christian nation, why doesn't our Constitution say so?

In 1797, America made a treaty with Tripoli, declaring that "the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." This reassurance to Islam was written during Washington's presidency, and approved by the Senate under John Adams.

 

If I wasn't an atheist I would thank god for that!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

most of the world's human population believes in a higher spiritual non-physical power so where does human intuition end and true ignorance begin?

it begins with our own internal biases

:P

also, if one denies God's existence than how can those who cite human cruelty done in the name of God attribute it all to what they insist does not exist?

human carnage lies at our own human feet and is not an accurate thermometer of whether God does or does not exist.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the american colonials did not know the indians had no immunity from their european germs and therefore didn't know they would croak.

Amherst and Smallpox

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, NipkowDisc said:

the american colonials did not know the indians at no immunity from their european germs and therefore didn't know they would croak.

Amherst and Smallpox

In some instances they purposely gave natives blankets that they knew to be infected with disease.  They were Christians.  What else could white Europeans be?

But I agree with your previous statement.  Just because one is Christian does not make one's crimes that of one's own God.  This holds true for Islam too and any other religion.  I say that mainly because I do nt believe "God" exists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, NipkowDisc said:

the american colonials did not know the indians at no immunity from their european germs and therefore didn't know they would croak.

Amherst and Smallpox

B.S. the British knew exactly what they were doing, did you even read the post

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, NipkowDisc said:

the american colonials did not know the indians at no immunity from their european germs and therefore didn't know they would croak.

Amherst and Smallpox

 

The use of biological warfare has been used since ancient times even if they didn't understood the exact mechanism such as microbes.

https://c.aarc.org/resources/biological/history.asp

https://news.usc.edu/1872/Since-ancient-times-biological-weapons-have-been-part-of-man-s-arsenal/

mongols-catapult.jpg

 

That aside,  the early explorers were unaware their presence introduce  microbes into a foreign environment which had no immunity whatsoever.

https://theconversation.com/how-smallpox-devastated-the-aztecs-and-helped-spain-conquer-an-american-civilization-500-years-ago-111579

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It wasn't until native Americans started dropping off from transferred "Christian" diseases like smallpox and syphilis and often unintentionally that whitey bean to understand what he was doing. But before that, the newcomer colonists insisting that the indigenous natives step aside and surrender their lands were already ignoring the fact they weren't following God's will. As for the Greeks and Romans....

They didn't believe in God, but rather, they believed in GODS!  So, when the two old Greeks up there are debating "God's command", WHICH "God" are they indicating?  ;) 

Sepiatone

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Vautrin said:

No God. No dilemma. The Nazis didn't leave God out of the equation, though their Christianity

was likely a most unorthodox one. The Roman Republic and the early Roman Empire existed

before the good news of Jesus was available, so they deserve a pass. Morality is a combination

of one's upbringing, the society in which one lives, and the time and place in which one lives,

and other factors. So it is mostly a subjective and contingent matter.

For most theists it should be a blow. The funny thing about "Divine command theory" is that I highly doubt 99% of the self-described Christians, Jews, muslims, nowadays would actually be willing to kill their own son (like Abraham) to please God and if they did, they certainly wouldn't consider it just or moral.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sukhov said:

For most theists it should be a blow. The funny thing about "Divine command theory" is that I highly doubt 99% of the self-described Christians, Jews, muslims, nowadays would actually be willing to kill their own son (like Abraham) to please God and if they did, they certainly wouldn't consider it just or moral.

I too can't see modern religious believers going so far as to actually kill their offspring on the command of 

God. I suppose that's a small piece of good news.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Vautrin said:

I too can't see modern religious believers going so far as to actually kill their offspring on the command of 

God. I suppose that's a small piece of good news.

x4ptb25u0pu41.jpg?width=960&crop=smart&a

If Trump commanded it.  Well, that's a different story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt even the most fanatic Trump supporter would go so far as to kill their son or daughter,

though they just might show up at Donny's COVID-19 Tulsa rally and harm themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Sepiatone said:

It wasn't until native Americans started dropping off from transferred "Christian" diseases like smallpox and syphilis and often unintentionally that whitey bean to understand what he was doing. But before that, the newcomer colonists insisting that the indigenous natives step aside and surrender their lands were already ignoring the fact they weren't following God's will. As for the Greeks and Romans....

They didn't believe in God, but rather, they believed in GODS!  So, when the two old Greeks up there are debating "God's command", WHICH "God" are they indicating?  ;) 

Sepiatone

In the original work of Plato, they are talking about Zeus and Uranus but over the centuries, others have reapplied the question to other religions including Christianity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma

And for the record, I am not against the soul or the afterlife but only against Divine command theory which is more of an abrahamic idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/14/2020 at 3:47 PM, Sukhov said:

How do the religious posters here argue against the Euthyphro dilemma?

ccb8ee34dc10347e044cafcba4ae03fd.jpg

God doesn't decide arbitrarily what's right or wrong; that implies that God is whimsical and I very much doubt that. And God cannot be subjected to goodness because God is the supreme being, nothing stands above him. Goodness is grounded in God's character. Something is morally good because God is good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Arsan404 said:

God doesn't decide arbitrarily what's right or wrong; that implies that God is whimsical and I very much doubt that. And God cannot be subjected to goodness because God is the supreme being, nothing stands above him. Goodness is grounded in God's character. Something is morally good because God is good.

God doesn't decide anything,  doesn't do anything,   has NO impact on what happens on this planet. 

If he did,   he is failing,  big time,  or he is very lazy.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Arsan404 said:

God doesn't decide arbitrarily what's right or wrong; that implies that God is whimsical and I very much doubt that. And God cannot be subjected to goodness because God is the supreme being, nothing stands above him. Goodness is grounded in God's character. Something is morally good because God is good.

Telling someone it's okay to kill his son for you seems a bit arbitrary though I concede it would be how you look at it. I think even most people who believe in the Bible would not be willing to do that even if their God said to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

God doesn't decide anything,  doesn't do anything,   has NO impact on what happens on this planet. 

If he did,   he is failing,  big time,  or he is very lazy.

 

 

Man is given freedom of choice which path he wants to take.  If he chose the wrong one, don't blame God.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, hamradio said:

Man is given freedom of choice which path he wants to take.  If he chose the wrong one, don't blame God.

Little kids dying of horrible cancers is a choice ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

© 2020 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...