Godless morality

[DennisK]

I was watching "Nature: Clever Monkeys" on PBS last night.  It was a wonderful insight into the world of monkeys.  Here are a few examples I thought were appropriate for this thread:

The show followed a troop of monkeys in SE Asia (I believe) whose main predator was a monitor lizard.  There was a specific warning the monkeys would use when a monitor lizard was seen by the troop.  I found it interesting that a subordinate from the group used this warning call on occasion to scare its troop into the trees for safety.  While the others were playing it safe, the one who sounded the alarm pulled out an egg it had hidden and quickly lapped it up.  It was basically 'lying' rather than share their findings with the more dominant in the group.  It was implied there stiff penalties for being caught and that this was a regular occurrence.

In Ethiopia, the gelada male monkeys have smaller harems that they travel with in groups of as many as 800.  Rival males will often try to test another male's authority by enticing a female from his group.  When confrontation occurs, sometimes an offspring of one of the males about to fight will abandon its mother for its father in an attempt to prevent the other from attacking.  Could this suggest there could be monkey morals?  It's something to think about.  Why would god give monkeys morals and no book for remembering?

[Jolly Sapper]

Hey.. I caught a few minutes of that last might myself.

[Titan]

If that is what they said then, at the risk of upsetting my compatriots, they are wrong ... morality is an ethical system, ethics are social and it is our individual consciences that we use to weigh up issues against the morality of a given society. There's more here if you are interested.

Yes, I am interested. I'm still a little confused as to how your distinction works exactly, and I would love to figure that out.

The best explanation period ... what atheistic perspective? I though we had agreed that atheism carries no philosophy?

It is forced to because philosophy concerns what has value and atheism has to figure out a system of how value is assigned in order to maintain life, or else it is completely meaningless.

Again I was under the impression we had agreed atheism carried no philosophy ... if so how is point 2 relevant at all?

phiâ‹...losâ‹...oâ‹...phy
â€, â€,/fɪˈlÉ'sÉ™fi/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [fi-los-uh-fee] Show IPA Pronunciation
â€"noun, plural -phies.
1.    the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct.

Unless atheism does not concern a rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge or conduct then I guess not. But you guys seem pretty emphatic that atheism is simply complete rationalism with the fewest assumptions tacked on. Atheism ultimately has to come up with an understanding of how morality is assigned and its significance and how far it is applied in regards to the human race and animals as well. That is why it is ultimately a philosophy. Because it HAS to have philosophical implications.

We justify it because we are small minded cultures with small minded selfish points of view. I'm not claiming any particular moral POV is correct and I'm certainly not claiming the system is perfect ... we're animals, we think and act like animals, we're territorial, resource driven, violent, aggressive, competitive creatures. On the plus side there is no hard rule that says we have to adhere to our animal natures and in my view we frequently rise above our nature and create things that are much, much better ... IMO the scientific struggle to explain the universe is one example.

So, knowing this, how can you rationally extend your philosophy to the world. Everyone else thinks that they have an objective reason for their morals, atheists don't believe so. If atheists are correct then how can they dissuade others to agree with them. Addressing your point more closely, you know you are small-minded...so where does that leave you?

Universal morality (one that transcends time and space as you appear to be arguing for) is a meaningless concept IMO.

If morality is carried into eternity I don't see how you can argue that. But a universal morality as applied from an atheistic perspective, then yes. Now knowing that, what is wrong with killing everyone and getting away with it?

Agreed on the last bit (religion and government shouldn't mix) but you're going to have to justify your first assertion.

Feminism, anti-slavery, rights of children, love of all people equally, an extension of that being that all men are intrinsically equal. This are only a few of the results of Christian doctrine over the years. This doesn't include a multitude of others. To contrast this, what has atheism brought about that the world has previously been working for?

Because we are evaluate others actions against our morality which we tend to treat as absolute even though it isn't.

But you KNOW this. So you know your morality isn't absolute, so my question still stands in regards to you personally.

What makes you think the god of your bible will reign supreme given that the god of your Old Testament (validated by the New) to use Dawkins description from "The God Delusion") is "arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; 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 realize that you hold Dawkins in the same regard as I hold C.S. Lewis...but I would answer him on all accounts and challenge his view that any of those are truly wrong from an atheistic perspective.

[DennisK]

Feminism, anti-slavery, rights of children, love of all people equally, an extension of that being that all men are intrinsically equal. This are only a few of the results of Christian doctrine over the years. This doesn't include a multitude of others. To contrast this, what has atheism brought about that the world has previously been working for?

Feminism?  Anti-slavery? Rights of children? Love of all people equally?  These are all attributed to the christian doctrine?

You can find more detailed information of the following at this address: http://www.religioustolerance.org/imm_bibl.htm#menu

NEW TESTAMENT
"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." - (Luke 19:27)
“Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak” - (1 Corinthians 14:34)
“...that women should adorn themselves modestly and sensibly in seemly apparel, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly attire”  - (l Timothy 2:9 RSV)


OLD TESTAMENT

Genocide:
Deuteronomy 7:1-2, Joshua 6:21, Joshua 10:40-41:
Genesis 19: - Cities of Sodom and Gomorrah for being:
•   Uncharitable to their widows, children and poor
•   Abusive to strangers.
Exodus 34:11-14, Leviticus, 26:7-9

Murdering a person because she looked the wrong way:
Genesis 19:12-26

Mass murder of fighters for democracy:
Numbers 16:2-3, Numbers 16:31-33

Murdering a person for practicing birth control:
Genesis 38:6-10

Murdering people for taking a census ordered by God:
2 Samuel 24:1-15:

Punishing the children, grandchildren, etc. of a sinner:
Exodus 20:5-6

Using torture against captives:
2 Samuel 12:26-31

Legal rape of females:
Deuteronomy 22:28-29

Passages relating to female slaves:
Exodus 21:4

Raping female prisoners of war:
Numbers 31:1-18, Deuteronomy 21:11-14


BIBLICAL MURDER OF CHILDREN

Mass murder of Babylonian babies:
In Psalms 137:8-9

The near ritual murder involving Isaac:
In Genesis 22:1-18

Mass murder of the Midianite children:
Numbers 31:1-18

Executing a whole family for the sins of the father:
Joshua 7:20-25

Mass murder of the first-born of Egypt:
Exodus 7:3, Exodus 7:13-14, Exodus 12:29-30

Genocide of the Geshurites, Gezirites, and Amalekites:
1 Samuel 27:8-9

MORE FUN MORALS IN THE BIBLE
Eating pork is forbidden in Deuteronomy 14:8
A man must marry and have relations with his dead brother’s wife (Deuteronomy 25:5-6)
A seducer must marry an unengaged virgin whom he seduces (Exodus 22:16-17)
A raped, unengaged virgin must marry her rapist and they can never divorce (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)
 Beards can’t be rounded (Leviticus 19:27)
A garment composed of wool and linen can’t be worn (Deuteronomy 22:11)
Bastards can’t enter the Lord’s congregation.  (Deuteronomy 23:2)

Forgive me if I may have mislabeled some of them (a lot of copy and pasting).  Even if only a few of these verses are true, how can they be considered moral by today's standards?

[Titan]

Dennis do you mind opening a new discussion up with these things, and starting off with a few at a time so I don't have to spend 3 hours per post? I'm sorry to be so picky but there is no way I'm going to be able to answer all of these in one sitting.

[Kyuuketsuki]

Yes, I am interested. I'm still a little confused as to how your distinction works exactly, and I would love to figure that out.

What I actually did there was provide a link for more information if you cared to follow it ... it wasn't part of my argument. Check the post.

The best explanation period ... what atheistic perspective? I though we had agreed that atheism carries no philosophy?

It is forced to because philosophy concerns what has value and atheism has to figure out a system of how value is assigned in order to maintain life, or else it is completely meaningless.

No, whether you would like it to be otherwise or not, atheism carries no philosophy ... it is simply a label. Now the how you become atheist ... that's an entirely different matter (and way more complicated).

Unless atheism does not concern a rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge or conduct then I guess not. But you guys seem pretty emphatic that atheism is simply complete rationalism with the fewest assumptions tacked on. Atheism ultimately has to come up with an understanding of how morality is assigned and its significance and how far it is applied in regards to the human race and animals as well. That is why it is ultimately a philosophy. Because it HAS to have philosophical implications.

Atheism is not a science or an investigative discipline or even a moral stance it is a label. I am an atheist primarily because of science.

Atheism says one (and only one) thing about an individual ... it says he or she is not a believer in a god or gods. That's it. No more. Nothing, NADA. ZIP. ZERO.

So, knowing this, how can you rationally extend your philosophy to the world. Everyone else thinks that they have an objective reason for their morals, atheists don't believe so. If atheists are correct then how can they dissuade others to agree with them. Addressing your point more closely, you know you are small-minded...so where does that leave you?

Which philosophy would that be? I may be inherently small-minded but I am capable of seeing the big picture and I am nowhere near as small minded as the majority of theists.

Universal morality (one that transcends time and space as you appear to be arguing for) is a meaningless concept IMO.

If morality is carried into eternity I don't see how you can argue that. But a universal morality as applied from an atheistic perspective, then yes. Now knowing that, what is wrong with killing everyone and getting away with it?

We've been over this repeatedly ... an objective (fixed) morality does not exist, atheism carries no morality and nothing is inherently wrong with killing everyone except that my societal morality has taught me it is wrong and my conscience has validated that as being a better way to behave.

Agreed on the last bit (religion and government shouldn't mix) but you're going to have to justify your first assertion.

Feminism, anti-slavery, rights of children, love of all people equally, an extension of that being that all men are intrinsically equal. This are only a few of the results of Christian doctrine over the years. This doesn't include a multitude of others. To contrast this, what has atheism brought about that the world has previously been working for?

You see ... you're doing it again! Would you please include enough of the former conversation to provide context because it is exceptionally frustrating to have to go back to the forum and find out what it was you said that led to what I said that led to what you said.

Sigh, you said:
But the truth is that Christians who don't fear death are the ones who are changing the world the most

Actually in the UK the Magna Carta provided the basis for English rights and I'd be willing to bet it is your constitution (written by the non-Christian founding fathers) that provides the basis for the US. I'd also argue that it is forward thinking people that believed in education (primarily labour unions and the like) that has pushed back the boundaries of ignorance and eventually led to the kinds of free-thinking, rights based societies we have today ... I'm not saying the Christian church hasn't had an impact but it's impact has been variable as a whole, largely negative IMO being more interested in persevering the status quo and its own power though some people within it have had a significant impact. What's interesting is that some speculate that it wasn't so much Christianity that advanced civil freedoms (when it did) but people who have recognised what the church was at root (a powerful organisation with powerful mechanisms and a great deal of influence) and have worked within it to forward their liberalistic goals ... many of those people may well have been atheists.

Suffice it to say that I would want an awful lot more supporting evidence before I would accept such an assertion.

Because we are evaluate others actions against our morality which we tend to treat as absolute even though it isn't.

But you KNOW this. So you know your morality isn't absolute, so my question still stands in regards to you personally.

I'm just as susceptible to it as anyone else and ultimately I still have to exist within a society which has a given moral stance (one that I largely mandate).

You realize that you hold Dawkins in the same regard as I hold C.S. Lewis...but I would answer him on all accounts and challenge his view that any of those are truly wrong from an atheistic perspective.

Perhaps and I'd like to see you try ... not only is Dawkins an exceptionally clever man, an excellent orator and so on but he knows how to research things and he will have thoroughly researched that statement before he made it.

Kyu

[Sophus]

But the truth is that Christians who don't fear death are the ones who are changing the world the most

Haven't all Christians tricked themselves into the illusion that they don't fear death? At least not as muc has before they became religious. I mean, that was one of the major purposes for creating religion in the first place. Find God and you live forever. But until then life is meaningless.

[Titan]

No, whether you would like it to be otherwise or not, atheism carries no philosophy ... it is simply a label. Now the how you become atheist ... that's an entirely different matter (and way more complicated).

My point is that it forces a philosophy since nothing has value except the self.

Atheism is not a science or an investigative discipline or even a moral stance it is a label. I am an atheist primarily because of science.

Atheism says one (and only one) thing about an individual ... it says he or she is not a believer in a god or gods. That's it. No more. Nothing, NADA. ZIP. ZERO.

Makes sense.

Which philosophy would that be? I may be inherently small-minded but I am capable of seeing the big picture and I am nowhere near as small minded as the majority of theists.

I'm not accusing you of being more small-minded or anything, I'm just addressing what you said in your post. As a rational atheist you know that you are ultimately the one who creates value for your world, right?

We've been over this repeatedly ... an objective (fixed) morality does not exist, atheism carries no morality and nothing is inherently wrong with killing everyone except that my societal morality has taught me it is wrong and my conscience has validated that as being a better way to behave.

But there are so many extensions on this that we haven't gotten to. Why is slavery wrong? If subjugation of a race is better than allowing them to propagate at will, then shouldn't slavery be utilized?

Actually in the UK the Magna Carta provided the basis for English rights and I'd be willing to bet it is your constitution (written by the non-Christian founding fathers) that provides the basis for the US. I'd also argue that it is forward thinking people that believed in education (primarily labour unions and the like) that has pushed back the boundaries of ignorance and eventually led to the kinds of free-thinking, rights based societies we have today ... I'm not saying the Christian church hasn't had an impact but it's impact has been variable as a whole, largely negative IMO being more interested in persevering the status quo and its own power though some people within it have had a significant impact.

I absolutely agree that much of Christianity has been corrupted by people who are after their own desires. I would like to reference the massive quantity of Christian scientists though and I'd also like to point out that many of our classic Universities (American, I don't know about British) were created with Christianity as a focal point.

Because we are evaluate others actions against our morality which we tend to treat as absolute even though it isn't.

But you KNOW this. So you know your morality isn't absolute, so my question still stands in regards to you personally.

I'm just as susceptible to it as anyone else and ultimately I still have to exist within a society which has a given moral stance (one that I largely mandate).

Wait, you are still susceptible to it even though you know that morality is a fabrication of society? How can you still be susceptible to ignorance when you have the knowledge of your ignorance AND the truth of the situation?

Perhaps and I'd like to see you try ... not only is Dawkins an exceptionally clever man, an excellent orator and so on but he knows how to research things and he will have thoroughly researched that statement before he made it.

Dawkins read all of the Bible AND read through works by Christian apologeticists? I ask because some of the stuff he is saying is EASILY refuted by C.S. Lewis, Ravi Zacharias, Augustine (going classic right there) and the like.

Sophus

Haven't all Christians tricked themselves into the illusion that they don't fear death? At least not as much has before they became religious. I mean, that was one of the major purposes for creating religion in the first place. Find God and you live forever. But until then life is meaningless.

Are you actually asking a question or making a claim based on pure speculation and presenting it as fact?

[Kyuuketsuki]

No, whether you would like it to be otherwise or not, atheism carries no philosophy ... it is simply a label. Now the how you become atheist ... that's an entirely different matter (and way more complicated).

My point is that it forces a philosophy since nothing has value except the self.

And you'd be wrong ... atheism is THE RESULT of other things that have philosophical value and it is those things that will change how I think about things and indeed whether or not I remain an atheist.

Atheism is not a science or an investigative discipline or even a moral stance it is a label. I am an atheist primarily because of science.

Atheism says one (and only one) thing about an individual ... it says he or she is not a believer in a god or gods. That's it. No more. Nothing, NADA. ZIP. ZERO.

Makes sense.

So why are you disagreeing with me on the philosophical value of atheism?

Which philosophy would that be? I may be inherently small-minded but I am capable of seeing the big picture and I am nowhere near as small minded as the majority of theists.

I'm not accusing you of being more small-minded or anything, I'm just addressing what you said in your post. As a rational atheist you know that you are ultimately the one who creates value for your world, right?

No, I am the product of my society, my education, my upbringing and my associations but as an intelligent individual I validate the views I am taught.

We've been over this repeatedly ... an objective (fixed) morality does not exist, atheism carries no morality and nothing is inherently wrong with killing everyone except that my societal morality has taught me it is wrong and my conscience has validated that as being a better way to behave.

But there are so many extensions on this that we haven't gotten to. Why is slavery wrong? If subjugation of a race is better than allowing them to propagate at will, then shouldn't slavery be utilized?

Slavery ISN'T inherently wrong, it just happens to be so according to the moral code I have adopted. I dunno ... seems to me the Christian Church has utilised slavery fairly well.

I absolutely agree that much of Christianity has been corrupted by people who are after their own desires. I would like to reference the massive quantity of Christian scientists though and I'd also like to point out that many of our classic Universities (American, I don't know about British) were created with Christianity as a focal point.

Assuming that by "Christian scientists" you're not referring to the fundamentalist groups (these are not scientists of any sort IMO) apparently the vast major of scientists today tend towards an atheistic or agnostic view on life. It's harder to justify religious believing scientist in the past because so many more people believed without serious question ... my best guess is that Newton and Mendel (and similar), were they alive today, would almost certainly have been an atheists. I would argue much the same about your classic universities were they built today.

I'm just as susceptible to it as anyone else and ultimately I still have to exist within a society which has a given moral stance (one that I largely mandate).

Wait, you are still susceptible to it even though you know that morality is a fabrication of society? How can you still be susceptible to ignorance when you have the knowledge of your ignorance AND the truth of the situation?

Firstly, you will have to demonstrate that the social morality of my society is based on ignorance and secondly you'll have to demonstrate that I actually believe and act that the given piece of social morality in question is one I personally validate.

Dawkins read all of the Bible AND read through works by Christian apologeticists? I ask because some of the stuff he is saying is EASILY refuted by C.S. Lewis, Ravi Zacharias, Augustine (going classic right there) and the like.

Personally I do not know but I would good money on him having done just that (I would in his position) ... indeed (whether you agree with his conclusions or not) "The God Delusion" marvellously demonstrates just how widely read in religion and of religious philosophers Dawkins is.

Haven't all Christians tricked themselves into the illusion that they don't fear death? At least not as much has before they became religious. I mean, that was one of the major purposes for creating religion in the first place. Find God and you live forever. But until then life is meaningless.

Are you actually asking a question or making a claim based on pure speculation and presenting it as fact?

I'd say he was being cynical.

Kyu

[Titan]

No, whether you would like it to be otherwise or not, atheism carries no philosophy ... it is simply a label. Now the how you become atheist ... that's an entirely different matter (and way more complicated).

My point is that it forces a philosophy since nothing has value except the self.

And you'd be wrong ... atheism is THE RESULT of other things that have philosophical value and it is those things that will change how I think about things and indeed whether or not I remain an atheist.

Are you saying that there is no concept of a value system that is related to atheism? Mankind isn't just matter + time + chance and the implications therein? If you reject the notion then realize too that Christianity wouldn't have a single philosophy because Christians disagree on many things. Christianity would simply be for a generic belief system.

Atheism is not a science or an investigative discipline or even a moral stance it is a label. I am an atheist primarily because of science.
Atheism says one (and only one) thing about an individual ... it says he or she is not a believer in a god or gods. That's it. No more. Nothing, NADA. ZIP. ZERO.

Makes sense.

So why are you disagreeing with me on the philosophical value of atheism?

Because while it is just a label the concept of there not being a God or gods has real implications. That is the point. Implications that can be reached via a rational path of argumentation of discussion.

Which philosophy would that be? I may be inherently small-minded but I am capable of seeing the big picture and I am nowhere near as small minded as the majority of theists.

I'm not accusing you of being more small-minded or anything, I'm just addressing what you said in your post. As a rational atheist you know that you are ultimately the one who creates value for your world, right?

No, I am the product of my society, my education, my upbringing and my associations but as an intelligent individual I validate the views I am taught.

You are telling me that you have never come to the realization that the views you are adhering to are nothing more than "views" and therefore constantly changing social constructs? Knowing that doesn't liberate you at all from the "chains" (if you will) of socially created boundaries? Regardless of whether you accept them or not, that isn't the point, the point is that you are forced to come to the realization that they mean absolutely nothing in the "scheme of things."

We've been over this repeatedly ... an objective (fixed) morality does not exist, atheism carries no morality and nothing is inherently wrong with killing everyone except that my societal morality has taught me it is wrong and my conscience has validated that as being a better way to behave.

But there are so many extensions on this that we haven't gotten to. Why is slavery wrong? If subjugation of a race is better than allowing them to propagate at will, then shouldn't slavery be utilized?

Slavery ISN'T inherently wrong, it just happens to be so according to the moral code I have adopted. I dunno ... seems to me the Christian Church has utilised slavery fairly well.

1. If slavery isn't inherently wrong at is merely due to your own moral code then please defend such a moral code. You know that you are simply getting force-fed your vantage point by your ancestors so what is keeping you from breaking out of that, subjugating the "lesser" man and benefiting yourself in the process?
2. I'm not going to defend the Christian church. "Never judge a philosophy by its abuses."

Assuming that by "Christian scientists" you're not referring to the fundamentalist groups (these are not scientists of any sort IMO) apparently the vast major of scientists today tend towards an atheistic or agnostic view on life. It's harder to justify religious believing scientist in the past because so many more people believed without serious question ... my best guess is that Newton and Mendel (and similar), were they alive today, would almost certainly have been an atheists. I would argue much the same about your classic universities were they built today.

1. I'm not talking about modern day fundamentalist "Christian scientists" I've told you before that I disagree with their theories.
2. For someone who claims to be rational you sure make a lot of unprovable stipulations to justify your perspective.
3. Newton, Tycho Brahe, Galileo, do these scientists ring any bells?

Firstly, you will have to demonstrate that the social morality of my society is based on ignorance and secondly you'll have to demonstrate that I actually believe and act that the given piece of social morality in question is one I personally validate.

1. Society doesn't recognize the sheer futility of life. Slavery isn't wrong and actually beneficial to the people who hold the power.
2. Since we are discussing slavery I'll use that one and assume that you believe slavery is wrong, we can also go with murder, genocide, rape, any of those if you would prefer.

Personally I do not know but I would good money on him having done just that (I would in his position) ... indeed (whether you agree with his conclusions or not) "The God Delusion" marvellously demonstrates just how widely read in religion and of religious philosophers Dawkins is.

Does he quote the responses to his arguments at all?

[Kyuuketsuki]

Are you saying that there is no concept of a value system that is related to atheism?

Yes.

Mankind isn't just matter + time + chance and the implications therein?

Why? Justify that assertion.

If you reject the notion then realize too that Christianity wouldn't have a single philosophy because Christians disagree on many things. Christianity would simply be for a generic belief system.

Christianity is just another belief system with nothing specific to recommend it or make its essential claims more worthwhile than those of any other.

Because while it is just a label the concept of there not being a God or gods has real implications. That is the point. Implications that can be reached via a rational path of argumentation of discussion.

Only in the mind of a theist! The concept of there being a god on the hand does have real implications. Try to step out of your limited theistic world for one moment and imagine what it would do to science if the explanation "God dun it" were accepted as valid for 1 or more questions currently under investigation by the scientific community. Given the former point can you name 1 event that is specifically worthy of such an explanation? That we should stop investigating because that explanation is entirely adequate for the question it supposedly answers?

You are telling me that you have never come to the realization that the views you are adhering to are nothing more than "views" and therefore constantly changing social constructs? Knowing that doesn't liberate you at all from the "chains" (if you will) of socially created boundaries? Regardless of whether you accept them or not, that isn't the point, the point is that you are forced to come to the realization that they mean absolutely nothing in the "scheme of things."

Constantly changing? Yes but mainly in fine, the majority of my views stay pretty much the same for long periods of time. Society's views, based as they are on the collective thought of many, changes much more slowly.

To give an example ... at one point in my life (and let me stress I was still at school) I would have given no thought to telling racist jokes, nowadays I still will tell jokes that have an element of race in them but the humour must be genuinely based on clever and funny circumstance and usually such jokes will be implicitly anti-racist ... I find racism utterly distasteful. Likewise, when younger I would have had few problems telling jokes that were sexist or at the expense of gays but nowadays I don't... I'm an intelligent man, I hate political correctness with a passion but my outlook on the world tells me it simply isn't morally supportable to stereotype people for things like race, sex & sexual orientation.

OTOH jokes about theists and the inherent stupidity of religion can be exceptionally funny.

Slavery ISN'T inherently wrong, it just happens to be so according to the moral code I have adopted. I dunno ... seems to me the Christian Church has utilised slavery fairly well.

1. If slavery isn't inherently wrong at is merely due to your own moral code then please defend such a moral code. You know that you are simply getting force-fed your vantage point by your ancestors so what is keeping you from breaking out of that, subjugating the "lesser" man and benefiting yourself in the process?

Outside of my basic personal philosophy that it benefits all of us (including me) to be tolerant, free-thinking, not to treat someone else in a fashion I would not wish to be treated and that slavery is incredibly inefficient use of "resources" ... I fail to see why I should support slavery. If, however, I lived in biblical times I imagine I would either own several slaves or be one.

I'm not going to defend the Christian church. "Never judge a philosophy by its abuses."

That's OK ... I'll do it for you

1. I'm not talking about modern day fundamentalist "Christian scientists" I've told you before that I disagree with their theories.

I thought you had but there are people who call themselves that so I was simply making the distinction.

2. For someone who claims to be rational you sure make a lot of unprovable stipulations to justify your perspective.

And in what I said I CLEARLY stated it as a GUESS ...live with it!

3. Newton, Tycho Brahe, Galileo, do these scientists ring any bells?

You mean like I already mentioned Newton? And yes, I still reckon these would be secular individuals if they were modern thinkers.

1. Society doesn't recognize the sheer futility of life. Slavery isn't wrong and actually beneficial to the people who hold the power.

Nothing I've ever claimed.

2. Since we are discussing slavery I'll use that one and assume that you believe slavery is wrong, we can also go with murder, genocide, rape, any of those if you would prefer.

And my answer would be the same.

Does he quote the responses to his arguments at all?

The book discusses these issues so yes.

Kyu

[DennisK]

Dennis do you mind opening a new discussion up with these things, and starting off with a few at a time so I don't have to spend 3 hours per post? I'm sorry to be so picky but there is no way I'm going to be able to answer all of these in one sitting.

No, please don't answer every one of the points I have made.  This thread is long enough and probably too long for some to bother trudging through all the back and forth commentary.  My intention was to show a number of atrocities written in the bible.

Do you believe the new testament trumps the old?  If so, how can you justify this if the OT was 'god's word'?  Was god wrong?  If not, how can you discount all the atrocities by today's ethical standards?  How are followers of JC supposed to not question but have faith when it's not plain what to have faith in?  We're supposed to get our morals from someone who may or may not have existed, who never wrote anything down, whose followers had conflicting stories that were copied and translated umpteen thousand times and who never spoke out against slavery or for women's rights?

Not only do theists not want you to put merit in science, they really don't want you to study the bible.  The bible is fundamentally immoral and should be 'translated' again into another language so as to filter out more of the crap that was missed in all the previous revisions and translations.

If you look at the bible much like Homer's Iliad, you will see that both were used to teach what the morals were in their time.  Both books of fiction were widely thought of as true accounts of the gods.  Most everyone on this planet now recognizes the works of Homer to be fantasy and do not worship the gods he created.  It will be the same for Christianity... in time.

[Titan]

Are you saying that there is no concept of a value system that is related to atheism?

Yes.

Excellent, we have made progress, I'll end up coming back to this periodically to make some points about humanity not having any value.

Mankind isn't just matter + time + chance and the implications therein?

Why? Justify that assertion.

If mankind is just matter + time + chance then we are ultimately meaningless because nothing has value in the universe. The implications of this are astronomical as personal well-being, happiness, megalomania and eroto-mania are all that matters which means that genocide isn't wrong as much as it is "someone else's perspective." You don't take comfort or displeasure in knowing that if you were alive 200 years ago you would be arguing for slavery without the slightest qualm, because it was what your portion of society believed in. Knowing that time is all that separates the you now from the genocidal, baby-sacrificing you that would have been alive and happy in an Assyrian society 3500 or so years ago makes the whole proposition of arguing for ethics rather odd. Therefore, there is no such thing as a "progressive" because a progressive implies a progression TO something, but from an atheistic perspective there is nothing that is better or worse than anything else (in the grand scheme of things) so it isn't a progression (nothing you should argue for) but simply a movement along a linear playing field.

Christianity is just another belief system with nothing specific to recommend it or make its essential claims more worthwhile than those of any other.

I absolutely disagree with this statement. From a perspective of prophecies, answers, influential power, etc.

Only in the mind of a theist! The concept of there being a god on the hand does have real implications. Try to step out of your limited theistic world for one moment and imagine what it would do to science if the explanation "God dun it" were accepted as valid for 1 or more questions currently under investigation by the scientific community. Given the former point can you name 1 event that is specifically worthy of such an explanation? That we should stop investigating because that explanation is entirely adequate for the question it supposedly answers?

Step out of your limited atheistic framework here... Evangelical Christians (as portrayed in the book The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind) are encouraged to study science and broaden our understanding of the world. Some questions seriously have a much bigger point coming across: what began it all and which huge assumption for the beginning fits better with our observations of existence. I think we should ALWAYS investigate every aspect of existence, study science fervently and keep an open-mind. But that ever present question of "where did "stuff" come from?" is always there and has not even gotten close to becoming solved.

Constantly changing? Yes but mainly in fine, the majority of my views stay pretty much the same for long periods of time. Society's views, based as they are on the collective thought of many, changes much more slowly.

To give an example ... at one point in my life (and let me stress I was still at school) I would have given no thought to telling racist jokes, nowadays I still will tell jokes that have an element of race in them but the humour must be genuinely based on clever and funny circumstance and usually such jokes will be implicitly anti-racist ... I find racism utterly distasteful. Likewise, when younger I would have had few problems telling jokes that were sexist or at the expense of gays but nowadays I don't... I'm an intelligent man, I hate political correctness with a passion but my outlook on the world tells me it simply isn't morally supportable to stereotype people for things like race, sex & sexual orientation.

Why not? Explain the rationality of your logic.

Outside of my basic personal philosophy that it benefits all of us (including me) to be tolerant, free-thinking, not to treat someone else in a fashion I would not wish to be treated and that slavery is incredibly inefficient use of "resources" ... I fail to see why I should support slavery. If, however, I lived in biblical times I imagine I would either own several slaves or be one.

Don't dodge the subject at hand...I've already asked people to open a thread specifically about things like slavery in the Bible and well deal with that there. Slavery essentially means you don't have to work. If you are able to subjugate others then you can gain at others expense and never get hurt by it. Slavery stopped, not because people said "Wow, these blacks are more useful to us free" but as people saying "It is WRONG to enslave others."

I'm not going to defend the Christian church. "Never judge a philosophy by its abuses."

That's OK ... I'll do it for you

Have fun wasting your time. It doesn't accomplish anything.

2. For someone who claims to be rational you sure make a lot of unprovable stipulations to justify your perspective.

And in what I said I CLEARLY stated it as a GUESS ...live with it!

But you use a guess to justify your claims...Circular reasoning.

3. Newton, Tycho Brahe, Galileo, do these scientists ring any bells?

You mean like I already mentioned Newton? And yes, I still reckon these would be secular individuals if they were modern thinkers.

Based on what? Do you realize how much of Newtonian theory was based on Christian influences...such as the number 7.

1. Society doesn't recognize the sheer futility of life. Slavery isn't wrong and actually beneficial to the people who hold the power.

Nothing I've ever claimed.

Argue against it then. What if the majority of society suddenly turned and decided slavery was alright...what would you do?

DennisK

No, please don't answer every one of the points I have made. This thread is long enough and probably too long for some to bother trudging through all the back and forth commentary. My intention was to show a number of atrocities written in the bible.

Do you believe the new testament trumps the old? If so, how can you justify this if the OT was 'god's word'? Was god wrong? If not, how can you discount all the atrocities by today's ethical standards? How are followers of JC supposed to not question but have faith when it's not plain what to have faith in? We're supposed to get our morals from someone who may or may not have existed, who never wrote anything down, whose followers had conflicting stories that were copied and translated umpteen thousand times and who never spoke out against slavery or for women's rights?

Wait, if you don't want this topic to get long why are you asking all these questions? If you want to discuss this please send me a PM or open a thread devoted to it and I'd happily answer any and all of these.

Not only do theists not want you to put merit in science, they really don't want you to study the bible. The bible is fundamentally immoral and should be 'translated' again into another language so as to filter out more of the crap that was missed in all the previous revisions and translations.

How can the Bible be immoral if society creates morality? I think we have run up against a flaw in your reasoning.

If you look at the bible much like Homer's Iliad, you will see that both were used to teach what the morals were in their time. Both books of fiction were widely thought of as true accounts of the gods. Most everyone on this planet now recognizes the works of Homer to be fantasy and do not worship the gods he created. It will be the same for Christianity... in time.

Chilling prophecy...I don't buy it. There are MASSIVE differences between the contents of the Bible and the contents of Homer's Iliad...read some Augustine for an excellent critique of the ancient pagan philosophies.

[Kyuuketsuki]

Are you saying that there is no concept of a value system that is related to atheism?

Yes.

Excellent, we have made progress, I'll end up coming back to this periodically to make some points about humanity not having any value.

Yet curiously it is what I have said to you all along ... I suppose it is progress though that you may have finally got it.

If mankind is just matter + time + chance then we are ultimately meaningless because nothing has value in the universe. The implications of this are astronomical as personal well-being, happiness, megalomania and eroto-mania are all that matters which means that genocide isn't wrong as much as it is "someone else's perspective." You don't take comfort or displeasure in knowing that if you were alive 200 years ago you would be arguing for slavery without the slightest qualm, because it was what your portion of society believed in. Knowing that time is all that separates the you now from the genocidal, baby-sacrificing you that would have been alive and happy in an Assyrian society 3500 or so years ago makes the whole proposition of arguing for ethics rather odd. Therefore, there is no such thing as a "progressive" because a progressive implies a progression TO something, but from an atheistic perspective there is nothing that is better or worse than anything else (in the grand scheme of things) so it isn't a progression (nothing you should argue for) but simply a movement along a linear playing field.

Mankind, life, whatever you want to call it is meaningless except within context of the meaning we give ourselves. I take no POV on what I might have thought I was doing x years ago except that in some respects I consider myself lucky to be alive today, in others I don't (would have preferred to live then). In cultural terms no, there is no such thing as progressive ...,w e are merely different and from our POV better or more civilised. I've grown up in this culture which is inherently rights based and I consider that a good thing for me, for my family, for most people ... why would I not want to argue for such a system? For the record I believe a benevolent dictatorship would be a better system of government.

Christianity is just another belief system with nothing specific to recommend it or make its essential claims more worthwhile than those of any other.

I absolutely disagree with this statement. From a perspective of prophecies, answers, influential power, etc.

Of course you do or you wouldn't be able to set yourself on an intellectual pedestal and believe that you are right and others are wrong. What prophecies? You mean the self-fulfilling ones within your bible? Colour me unimpressed.

Only in the mind of a theist! The concept of there being a god on the hand does have real implications. Try to step out of your limited theistic world for one moment and imagine what it would do to science if the explanation "God dun it" were accepted as valid for 1 or more questions currently under investigation by the scientific community. Given the former point can you name 1 event that is specifically worthy of such an explanation? That we should stop investigating because that explanation is entirely adequate for the question it supposedly answers?

Step out of your limited atheistic framework here... Evangelical Christians (as portrayed in the book The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind) are encouraged to study science and broaden our understanding of the world. Some questions seriously have a much bigger point coming across: what began it all and which huge assumption for the beginning fits better with our observations of existence. I think we should ALWAYS investigate every aspect of existence, study science fervently and keep an open-mind. But that ever present question of "where did "stuff" come from?" is always there and has not even gotten close to becoming solved.

I note with interest that you didn't answer the question [/quote]
Have fun wasting your time. It doesn't accomplish anything.[/quote]

Oh it surely does

3. Newton, Tycho Brahe, Galileo, do these scientists ring any bells?

You mean like I already mentioned Newton? And yes, I still reckon these would be secular individuals if they were modern thinkers.

Based on what? Do you realize how much of Newtonian theory was based on Christian influences...such as the number 7

Which has precisely what to with Newtonian physics (which is pretty much all Newton is remembered for)?

1. Society doesn't recognize the sheer futility of life. Slavery isn't wrong and actually beneficial to the people who hold the power.

Nothing I've ever claimed.

Argue against it then. What if the majority of society suddenly turned and decided slavery was alright...what would you do?

Why should I argue against something I don't claim, don't believe in? Get real man.

Kyu

[DennisK]

Titan,

In listing the barbarous acts in the bible, I was just trying to show that there were many.  I don't wish to bring these up in another thread or here because I can't stand reading dissected responses.  If you view that as a cop out on my part, I'm sorry.  If you could lump them together and defend them, it would be great.  I'm not a skilled forum reader and it is very difficult to read your fragmented comments.  Not to mention, they usually require that you read the entire thread in one sitting.  I'm an ADD boy.  Can't do it.

In regards to the Iliad, I probably shouldn't have referred to it as I only know a bit of the mythology and only ASSuMEd how it was used.  What I was trying to touch on was that both books were highly regarded as the truth in their time.  Would you not agree?  The Iliad and Odyssey have been discredited by almost all (except the nut jobs).  The bible will follow suit not because there is a better book of religion out there, but because free thought is less and less persecuted.

I would like you to respond to my previous post, specifically:

Do you believe the new testament trumps the old? If so, how can you justify this if the OT was 'god's word'? Was god wrong? If not, how can you discount all the atrocities by today's ethical standards?