Reddit reviews In the Dust of This Planet: Horror of Philosophy vol. 1

> If God said rape was moral you’d agree.

No, i wouldn't. I can disagree with god.

I provide as evidence the fact that I disagree with god about beating slaves. So no.

You're also not answering the question.

> I chose to say god spelled with a small g as a proxy for all of every and any concept of god as it might exist in any way shape or form other than God

Yeah, that's going to get confusing. Just say christian god, vs gods or something.

​

I don't really care what Darwin thought about god.

​

> He exists outside of our physical realm, thus being our objective source for morality.

I don't see the connection between these two things.

​

> Since you are unwilling to conceive of Him or any other being as existing outside of the physical universe

I've never done this. You just decided that I think god is within the universe or something. You're just putting words in my mouth.

> in a reality where there is only the physical universe and what is contained herein, all that could ever exist is what is subjective and phenomenal

This is false. The fact that there is a chair under me right now is an objective fact.

> https://www.amazon.com/dp/B005BRJWCO/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_qjLTBbF83HQ01

In your own words please.

A few bits of advice: A) Forever is relative - you're going to live 100% of your life no matter how long that is, B) being a junior in college really isn't that large of an investment relative to the rest of your life, and C) if you really want to think about your place in a post-human world, might I suggest the excellent In the Dust of This Planet.

If God said rape was moral you’d agree.

That’s my argument.

When I said you believe god is contained within our physical realm, I could have (should have?) said “the concept of god”, but I chose to say god spelled with a small g as a proxy for all of every and any concept of god as it might exist in any way shape or form other than God. I’m trying to stipulate exactly what you believe, a Darwinian version of god. I say Darwinian and not evolutionary because of my exposure to the Darwin, and the Evolution of God, (The Evolving God: Charles Darwin on the Naturalness of Religion https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00I2MZNGO/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_raLTBbSC832CC) a work detailing how his belief in god as I have described him is what has prevailed more than his Origin or Species (which was being chased by a variety of biologists just like so many contemporaries were chasing flight.)

My reason for claiming that you are mixing objective and subjective comes from my original argument that He exists outside of our physical realm, thus being our objective source for morality. Since you are unwilling to conceive of Him or any other being as existing outside of the physical universe, all sources of morality must proceed from within our own natural realm and must all be subjective. This is why I believe I say, “you’re being subjective!” but you say “oh yeah, well you’re being subjective too!” Well of course you say that, in a reality where there is only the physical universe and what is contained herein, all that could ever exist is what is subjective and phenomenal because the objective and noumenal aren’t just beyond our grasp, they’re not even conceivable. Here I am trying (with all my frail might) to follow the work of Eugene Thacker (In the Dust of This Planet: Horror of Philosophy vol. 1 https://www.amazon.com/dp/B005BRJWCO/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_qjLTBbF83HQ01).

Disclaimer: The works cited here do not represent my views. They are from renown atheists, but they’re rael smart.