Total posts: 1,720
-->
@zedvictor4
I really wish there were emote reactions on the posts on this site! Its just awkward replying with 'lol'!
Btw...lol! 😆
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Catholics have historically had a rather problematic relationship with the children of Israel.
...and children in general, it seems.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
[a] My point is to illustrate that without an objective, universal standard subjective beliefs become what is thought of as morally good to a person's thinking.
1. You haven't demonstrated that an objective, universal standard is necessary. Tell me, when someone tells you to go North on a road that doesn't go perfectly toward geographic North, are you unable to proceed? No, of course not. We only need a general reference (not an absolute) point in order to move through the physical (or moral) world.
2. You haven't shown a fixed moral reference point exists. You have interpretations of someone else's words. Whether you want to admit it or not morality (yours included) has a subjective basis.
[b] That is one outlook and just as highly speculative. He [Jack the Ripper] may have thought that society thought it wrong, yet he justified killing them nonetheless. Thus, his idea of the good was in killing them, perhaps with the idea of helping to rid society of a few of what was considered a bad profession. It is obvious he took pleasure in doing this because of the amount of detailed mutilation.
I'm more than willing to admit my view is speculative, but not more so than yours.
[c] His views were never informed by Christianity but by his aberration of Christianity mixed with social Darwinism.
You mean Hitler's interpretations of Christianity did not agree with yours? If that is what you mean, then yes, I agree. But, that doesn't negate the fact that some of Hitler's views regarding Jews were derivative from Christianity.
d] Jesus was a Jew
And? I think you are trying to say this contradicts Hitler's religiously inspired hatred of Jews? From a theological standpoint, Jesus would have been much more than a Jew. According to the Bible, and Christians, Jesus was the son of a god...and Jews (who were not the son of god) had him crucified. I shouldn't have to explain this to you...
e] It just goes to show how a human [Kim Jung-un] being with human frailties can impose his subjective standard on others without being able to justify it.
Inconsistency. Above you suggest Jack the Ripper (a human) justified his killings, but Kim Jung-Un can't do the same because he is human. You can't have it both ways, buddy.
[f] Jesus was of Jewish lineage. He only elaborated on an already existing standard that was revealed biblically as imposed by the Judeo-Christian God.
Regardless of what Jesus might have actually endorsed, it is fair to say Christians have appealed to their religion to endorse the good and the bad simultaneously. Whatever issues we might have with Kim Jung-Un, he has, at least, never simultaneously agreed and disagreed with himself.
That being said, it should be noted only two from your list were actually engaged in a discussion of morality. The others are a distraction.The point is that only one qualifies as having what is necessary for morality - Jesus Christ. The others do not have what is necessary for morality.
That is an assertion and beside the point. Bentham and Jesus were attempting to change moral views - the others were obviously not. Thus, only these two are comparable.
Every one of these first four standards is conflicting and logically cannot all be true because they state opposites. They have different identities, which is inconsistent with the laws of logic.The Law of Identity would apply to all five options - Jesus is not immune from logic.No, the law of identity would not apply to them all, for they all have differing views of the good.
Different people having different views of a subject does not violate the law of identity. If morality was all of these views at the same time, then you would have an argument, but that is not what anyone is suggesting.
Your 'objective, universal, unchanging standard' has already been shown overkill. A compass works because it points to a non-universal, changing reference point known to be in a general direction. Time to update your argument/views, sir.Nope. While the compass magnetic north points in the north's general direction, true north is a defined geographic location on earth. True north or the North Pole has an exact grid location.
How does one go "north" if one is not on Earth (or on any planet)? North only works in the context of Earth (or a planet). Thats the point, even your analogy relies on context and is not universal.
Within the context of earthbound navigation, north provides guidance. Within the context of morality, well-being is the guide.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
...why should we avoid checkmate?It is not desirable for our egos. It ends the game and we lose.It is interesting to me that you acknowledge the subjectivity of chess and still look for a 'best' move. Aren't you the same person that claims there can be no 'best' without a fixed (absolute, universal) reference point? You are contradicting yourself.We are subjective in our thinking, but in chess (as in morality), there is the best move in any given circumstance. If you could look ahead to every move 'til the endgame and play the perfect game, there would be a fixed reference point for every move, depending on what opening is employed. I still can't decide if the game would end in a draw with particular openings if both players could make every move the perfect move. They can stunt the potential. I believe in tempo, therefore white has the initial advantage. White is able to open up first and should be one step ahead of black in the development of pieces and opening files in putting pressure on the opponent's position. Having said that, some openings are downright weak (i.e., P-R4). Opening up the middle gives the pieces more freedom although the Indian defences can be very effective too.There is a set move for white for those fool's mate scenarios I gave you earlier that also depend on a set move for black. These are fixed. If white does 'a' and black responds with 'b' it leads to those forced scenarios of checkmate. We do not have the foresight to determine the fixed and best move every time, like when we get ten moves into the game, both players playing a sound game. There are books on openings in which every scenario has been analyzed and documented for a great number of moves for any given opening. When one player exploits the other player's weakness, there again becomes obvious fixed (best) moves five or ten moves ahead that result in checkmate. Every move of your opponent is forced in these checkmate scenarios.Peter, you have already responded to this post, and we've moved the conversation well beyond. Either you're very disorganized or you're trying to pretend we've never had this exchange.Let me know when you catch up to where the conversation actually is.#860#870#872#874Where did I respond to this, Skone?I usually systematically go down the list in order, but I scan ahead and find a post that interests a response once in a while. If that happened, I apologize.
Where? ...I knew I should have provided links to the redundant response...oh wait, I DID!
Maybe you should read and absorb a post before you respond (and only respond once!)?
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Seriously? Do you not think it is wrong, universally, for someone to torture innocent people?
...isn't that literally the basis of the salvation offered by the crucifixion of Jesus - a perfectly innocent being tortured and killed for the sins of humanity?
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
In contention is whether chess actions and moral actions are comparable. PGA suggest an apples and oranges comparison because, in his view, chess is descriptive whereas morality is a prescribed. This is false. Statements regarding chess and/or morality can be descriptive (Pawn to A4 is a bad move/Murder is bad) or prescriptive (You should not move your pawn there/You should not murder). The difference suggested between the two is non-existent and suggesting otherwise is, whether PGA admits to it or not, a category error.
What PGA tries very hard to discount is that both chess and morality have an understood reference point - neither of which God or gods are required to explain.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
It is interesting to me that you acknowledge the subjectivity of chess and still look for a 'best' move. Aren't you the same person that claims there can be no 'best' without a fixed (absolute, universal) reference point? You are contradicting yourself.You are comparing apples to oranges again. How is chess a moral issue unless I cheat?I believe you are making a category error. How are evaluations of chess actions and evaluations of life actions fundamentally different...other than you saying so?I don't think so. Chess is only subjective because of our limited knowledge and ability to think through the best combinations, starting from the first moves through to the last. In some situations, we can think of all the best moves for ourselves when our opponent makes an error or chooses a weak opening, such as the various fool's mate openings or a forced mate later in the game. In those situations, you can name mate in four or five or how many moves because for each move; the opponent is forced to reply in a fixed way to avoid mate happening sooner. Your opponent is forced to respond in a specific way to prolong the inevitable. If both players played a perfect game (no errors, playing the optimum move every time), it becomes more difficult because of the massive possibilities available. I don't think we are capable of that with some opening, but the tempo would go to White and be countered by Black until White's next move, and so on. Thus, I think such a perfect game, selecting the strongest opening by both, would result in a draw, or win by White, but I cannot say for sure since I don't know anyone who has determined the best, most perfect move for every opposing best and most perfect move. We know that some openings are stronger than others because they develop the pieces faster and pressure the opponent's defences.I am saying (comparing apples to oranges) that you are making the categorical error in comparing Chess to morality. Best in Chess is not the same as best regarding morality. I can verify best in chess through the senses/empirically. It could be demonstrated in some situations because the best would lead to an opponent's loss if they did not respond in kind. How do you verify something abstract like the good? One is a qualitative value (morality), the other a quantitative value (a Chess move). One can be demonstrated through the senses; the other cannot.Now, if God exists and has revealed, then we can know the moral best in as much as He has revealed it. And from the Ten Commandments, as well as God disclosing His nature and attributes, we can deduce the good from the bad in other scenarios and from the examples of His interaction in the OT and His physical appearance in the NT. The Bible reveals He created us in His image and likeness (moral beings), so it is possible to know the right, the good. I believe we have an innate sense of the good, but that too can be marred by our subjectivity and ignoring His objective decrees. We choose to be relativists
This is the third time you've responded to this post. Why are you trying to reset the conversation?! I mean seriously, if you can't be bothered to follow the conversation (which has moved well past this post), then why should anyone waste their time attempting to carry on with you?
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
@Amoranemix
SkepticalOne is open to anything supported by evidence.Are you speaking for SkepticalOne now?
...and doing a fine job of it if you ask me!
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
...why should we avoid checkmate?It is not desirable for our egos. It ends the game and we lose.It is interesting to me that you acknowledge the subjectivity of chess and still look for a 'best' move. Aren't you the same person that claims there can be no 'best' without a fixed (absolute, universal) reference point? You are contradicting yourself.We are subjective in our thinking, but in chess (as in morality), there is the best move in any given circumstance. If you could look ahead to every move 'til the endgame and play the perfect game, there would be a fixed reference point for every move, depending on what opening is employed. I still can't decide if the game would end in a draw with particular openings if both players could make every move the perfect move. They can stunt the potential. I believe in tempo, therefore white has the initial advantage. White is able to open up first and should be one step ahead of black in the development of pieces and opening files in putting pressure on the opponent's position. Having said that, some openings are downright weak (i.e., P-R4). Opening up the middle gives the pieces more freedom although the Indian defences can be very effective too.There is a set move for white for those fool's mate scenarios I gave you earlier that also depend on a set move for black. These are fixed. If white does 'a' and black responds with 'b' it leads to those forced scenarios of checkmate. We do not have the foresight to determine the fixed and best move every time, like when we get ten moves into the game, both players playing a sound game. There are books on openings in which every scenario has been analyzed and documented for a great number of moves for any given opening. When one player exploits the other player's weakness, there again becomes obvious fixed (best) moves five or ten moves ahead that result in checkmate. Every move of your opponent is forced in these checkmate scenarios.
Peter, you have already responded to this post, and we've moved the conversation well beyond. Either you're very disorganized or you're trying to pretend we've never had this exchange.
Let me know when you catch up to where the conversation actually is.
#860
#870
#872
#874
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Moral opinions have no basis for the good unless there is an objective, universal, unchanging best to compare "good" with. What are you comparing "good" with - someone else's shifting standard?Kim Jung-un: My standard of good is killing others before you are killed, looking out for my own interests above all others.Jack the Ripper: My standard of good is killing others for fun.Adolf Hitler: My standard of good is ridding society of undesirable groups that are an inferior race. Those who meet my standard are safe from persecution.Jeremy Bentham's Utilitarianism: Whatever promotes happiness and well-being for most by avoiding harm is good, depending on how you define well-being, good, and harm.Jesus Christ: THE standard of good is to love others as yourselves and love God.
It is questionable that the first three have a "standard of good" which includes killing others. For instance, Jack the Ripper skulked around and hid his actions from the world as though he knew he was doing wrong. Secondly, it can be argued (and it has in this thread) Adolf Hitler's views were informed by Christianity - his hatred of Jews was, at the very least, inspired by their role in the crucifixion of Jesus. Finally, Kim Jung-un thinks he IS a god and might argue a his own 'universal, objective, and unchanging' standard. Despite how we might disagree with his views, he has the advantage of less than 2 millennia of changing standards Christianity suffers.
That being said, it should be noted only two from your list were actually engaged in a discussion of morality. The others are a distraction.
Every one of these first four standards is conflicting and logically cannot all be true because they state opposites. They have different identities, which is inconsistent with the laws of logic.
The Law of Identity would apply to all five options - Jesus is not immune from logic.
Your 'objective, universal, unchanging standard' has already been shown overkill. A compass works because it points to a non-universal, changing reference point known to be in a general direction. Time to update your argument/views, sir.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
It is interesting to me that you acknowledge the subjectivity of chess and still look for a 'best' move. Aren't you the same person that claims there can be no 'best' without a fixed (absolute, universal) reference point? You are contradicting yourself.You are comparing apples to oranges again. How is chess a moral issue unless I cheat?I believe you are making a category error. How are evaluations of chess actions and evaluations of life actions fundamentally different...other than you saying so?No, you are making a categorical error. One set of evaluations has to do with what is (the descriptive), the other with what ought to be (the prescriptive). If I make the wrong chess move, resulting in my loss to you, it is not morally wrong, just an oversight that affects a game's outcome. It was not my intention to lose, and I played the game for my enjoyment. If I steal and lie to you, and it results in an injury to you, I have harmed you by intent. My evaluation has nothing to do with a moral wrong in a chess game. It does when I intentionally hurt an innocent person for my enjoyment and greed.
That is no answer at all. An evaluation of chess action isn't descriptive because it causes no intentional harm. Likewise, an evaluation of a life action isn't prescriptive because harm might hang in the balance. You are claiming a difference, but providing no explanation beyond assertion. 'Harm' isn't the metric by which we apply the labels "prescriptive" or "descriptive".
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
It is interesting to me that you acknowledge the subjectivity of chess and still look for a 'best' move. Aren't you the same person that claims there can be no 'best' without a fixed (absolute, universal) reference point? You are contradicting yourself.You are comparing apples to oranges again. How is chess a moral issue unless I cheat?
I believe you are making a category error. How are evaluations of chess actions and evaluations of life actions fundamentally different...other than you saying so?
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
...why should we avoid checkmate?It is not desirable for our egos. It ends the game and we lose.
It is interesting to me that you acknowledge the subjectivity of chess and still look for a 'best' move. Aren't you the same person that claims there can be no 'best' without a fixed (absolute, universal) reference point? You are contradicting yourself.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
How do you define moral relativism?The short or long version?
Clear and concise would be nice.
A good move is one that gives you the tempo and puts your opponent on the defensive by applying pressure and exploiting weaknesses.
In regards to morality, you said right could not be determined without an "objective moral standard". By that reasoning, the absence of an 'objective chess standard' would leave us unable to objectively determine 'right' chess moves. Do you have an 'objective chess standard'?
If not, could it be you've fallen into some sort of chess relativism and you have no basis to say any move is better than another without this fixed reference point? ...Or could it be there is a third option?
For our finite minds, it depends on the opening. Some openings have a standard reply that leads to a checkmate (Fools Mate, two moves each) in a limited number of moves.
...why should we avoid checkmate?
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
we seem to be discussing different things. If you look solely at the electoral college, then sure biden got a big win. If you look at the actual vote totals in the critical states, they are pretty close. The difference between a "big win" for biden and a "bid win" for trump is like 50,000 votes difference. That is a tight race.
I think there is definitely a disconnect here. I fail to see how you view this as a tight race. Even if Trump won PA and Wisconsin, he still would not have won sufficient electoral votes for an overall victory, and Biden has sufficient electoral votes for victory without these states. I think maybe you're relying on incomplete or bad data.
I agree it is significant, because the Dems massively underperformed.
You're assuming the polls were an accurate representation. That's not a given.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
If those states had gone red, then Trump would have won. Which means the difference between Biden winning and losing was 1% of the vote in 2 states. That is a narrow victory.
No, that's not correct. If those states had gone to Trump, Biden would still be up. Trump's 232 electoral votes would become 262 - still short of 270, and Biden would have 276...*that* would be a narrow victory. Its a little absurd that Trump winning with 306 electoral votes in 2016 was a 'landslide', but Biden with the same number is a 'narrow victory'.
If like 10,000 people had voted differently in Wisconsin and something like 35,000 people had voted different in PA, then Trump would have won. a 45,000 vote margin is tight.
Lol, yep Trump narrowly missed holding Biden to a narrow victory within the questionable strictures of the electoral college. (Not narrow at all). In actuality, 5 million more people voted for Biden, Democrats will hold the House, and there's a chance they gain control of the Senate. That's significant.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Wisconsin and Pa went red in 2016, but Biden was able to convert them in 2020. Narrow margins in these states doesn't mean a narrow victory overall.
Now, if you mentioned Democrats losing House seats...maybe, but then we should consider the Senate too - which isn't decided yet.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
...only narrowly beat a president who is widely hated.
This isn't holding up well.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
1). This doesn't address my argument. I explained why my needs have no impact on your control over your own body. You aren't addressing that.
2). This is not an argument, but an assertion. Fwiw, pregnancy is not a symbiotic relationship either.
3). False equivalence. There is no requirement a newborn live off the body of a particular individual - there are many paths to survival.
4). Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy anymore than participating in social activities is consent to contracting Covid-19.
5). Abortion is not killing someone anymore than you refusing to donate a kidney is killing someone else in need of one. (I think you missed the point of the analogy).
6). An 'eye for an eye' leaves the world blind (and without kidneys).
7). Abortion is not terminating an "innocent human life" - it is terminating pregnancy. Again, if you refuse your kidney to someone who needs it, you are not killing them or denying them a right to life.
Additionally, I don't accept the notion of 'higher rights'. Rights are meant to make life the best it can be and claiming any one is more important than the others misses the point. In other words, your right to life doesn't outweigh any of my rights and vice versa. Your liberty to swing your fist ends just where my nose begins...your right to live ends where my body begins.
8). You have the analogy backward. The person needing the kidney is analogous to the unborn.
9). Sex is not consent to pregnancy - addressed above.
10). You are arguing consent and rights in general are non existent when they cannot be understood? Can someone without the ability to understand right from wrong do whatever they like? Laws are applicable to everyone.
11). Most abortions occur by medication long before the ability to feel pain or awareness has developed and at least half of all conceptions end *naturally*-You're attempting to poison the well with emotionality built on dishonesty and/or ignorance.
12). Consenting to vaginal sex is not consent to use of spleen, liver, mind, or uterus. As said before, consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy - it is consent to share one's body with another who exists at that moment.
13). If you were using my body to live, I *do* get to disconnect you - even if that means you will die. My body is my domain.
14). The ability to experience life's beauty is what makes life valuable...and more of that experience does not devalue that life. Having the capacity to experience being alive is what makes life special. Lacking that capacity (and never having achieved it) is at best potential. Potential experience =/= experience. Potential life =/= life
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
What is the opposite of moral relativism?
How do you define moral relativism?
Now, if you have no objective standard, you run into other problems. How can you objectively determine right without an objective moral standard?
Given you're a chess player, maybe this will be an analogy you grasp: how do you determine a good move in chess? Is there an 'objective chess standard'?
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
What is this 'see-saw' you refer to? My core position is simple and unchanging: there is no right to use the body of another without consent.The woman is violating the body of the unborn TO KILL IT and without its consent.
So, if I am going to die without a kidney, I can take one of yours? OF course not. And if you want to argue responsibility, then my kidney was damaged by your actions...can I take one of yours? Of course not. By your reasoning you're killing me...but that's not true is it? You have a right to your body no matter what that control disallows to me. It's not about my consent, but yours since my needs overlaps with your bodily autonomy. There is no right to use the body of another without consent.
I've really lost interest in this thread and this argumentation. It is so often 'us vs them' and you consistently attempt to put your interlocutor into an 'enemy' role and pigeonhole them per your views (and not their own). I don't view you as an enemy, Peter, and I believe these conversation aren't helpful to either and simply polarize us from each other. Perhaps, we can eventually learn to talk to each other as friends. ;-) I'll be working on this on my end. I encourage you to do the same.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
You keep implying that there is no objective biblical standard because subjective people, such as Christians, cannot make objective judgments. Yet, you yourself claim there is an objective standard (double standard).
I'm not saying morality is objective, I'm saying that whether your standard is well-being, god, or anything else it is a subjective standard. If well-being is our standard, then we can objectively determine right and wrong against this standard. If the will of a god is defined, then we can objectively determine right and wrong against this standard. In no way am I suggesting either is an objective standard.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Second, how do they arrive at the 'best' if morality has no fixed address, no fixed reference point? It is a constantly shifting standard that points to 'better' but better than what?
This appeal to a "fixed reference point" has been shown unnecessary in a post you haven't caught up to yet. A compass doesn't use a fixed reference point, yet the world can be successfully navigated with it.
While atheists can and sometimes do live more morally than many Christians do, from where their worldview starts (their most basic presuppositions), there is no reason they should.
Again, atheism is not a moral philosophy.
...and the tired old argument of the 'vast killings due to atheism' (in the name of atheism?!) is something that may work in dogmatic echo chambers, but not to any reasoning person. Mao (et al) didn't kill because of atheism - that would be like killing for a-unicornism. It is a nonsense argument.
Morality is about the well-being of humans,Whose well-being?
...humans.
and humans were concerned about what actions and attitudes ensured their survival long before Christianity came to be.To benefit themselves and ensure their own survival at the expense of others.
Given that we are a social species, our survival is typically linked to others...
Christianity is different; it looks out not only for self but also for everyone, denying oneself for others' benefit.
That is revisionistic. Christianity has a far from perfect track record for a moral philosophy supposedly laid down by a perfect lawgiver. On the other hand, humanism is the tide that raises all boats, and Christianity is along for the ride while it maintains a humanistic component. (That's a good thing!)
Again, biblical slavery [...]
...is slavery. There is no justifiable reason or context where one human owning another is justifiable. Biblical slavery is an aspect of Christianity where it conflicts with humanism. That's problematic if Christianity really is about treating others as you would have them treat you.
Ok, it's just a fact most people are non-Christians (and are just as moral as Christians).Because they adopt the Judeo-Christian standard - it is wrong to murder, wrong to steal, wrong to lie, wrong to covet, wrong to commit adultery.
...and I suppose you think murder, theft, dishonesty etc., were all considered completely acceptable before Judaism/Christianity? It's a wonder mankind made it 10,000/100,000's years until "God" decided to finally reveal himself!
I'm having real difficulty finding anything compelling in your assertions here.
No. Other gods are fake.
Christopher Hitchens: "From a plurality of prime movers, the monotheists have bargained it down to a single one. They are getting ever nearer to the true, round figure."
That means they [believers] think morality owes its existence to a personal being or beings
I would agree morality doesn't exist without conscious beings. It makes no sense to me that you continually discount the personal beings we all know/see and appeal to one we can't. That is an ugly part of your theology, imo. You deny dignity to humanity in order to revere the undetectable.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
How does your personal opinion and preference make something right if you have no objective unchanging/fixed source or reference point?How can you go north, east, west or south without an unchanging/fixed source or reference point?You are inferring and projecting again.
That is not an answer.
P.S. Magnetic north isn't a fixed reference point - it moves.True north or the North Pole is.
A compass doesn't point to "True North"...it points to the magnetic north pole which is not a fixed reference point. Yet, in spite of not being fixed, magnetic north makes a great reference point by which to navigate our world. The point being, a fixed reference point is an unnecessary requirement for navigation through space ...or morality.
P.S.S. Human interpretation of the 'will of God' isn't a fixed reference point either and can be used to support atrocities and oppose equality. (Holocaust, apartheid, Transatlantic slave trade)The Holocaust, Apartheid, transatlantic slavery are not biblical or OT slavery but a misinterpretation.
Says you. I'm sure the folks who believed they were justified in committing these atrocities would argue a correct interpretation on the same grounding you deny it.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
I have denied from the start that biblical slavery is the same as chattel slavery.Yea, well, you're just wrong, and you squash your own denial when you argue for forced slavery for the purpose of conversion. I mean, seriously, if it's forced it can't be indentured servitude.No, you're mistaken. You are comparing the 19th-century chattel slavery to biblical slavery that God condones. [...]
chattel slavery:
the enslaving and owning of human beings and their offspring as property, able to be bought, sold, and forced to work without wages, as distinguished from other systems of forced, unpaid, or low-wage labor also considered to be slavery. [Link]
OT slavery allowed non-Hebrews and women to be bought, sold, and forced to perform services without wages (beating was acceptable). This is stated plainly in the Bible and no amount of bad apologetics changes or mitigates this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Its not a matter of how evolution is defined, but how well it is understood and accepted.Accepted and understood as in dogma and doctrine? Believe this or be rejected.
Exactly like that, but completely different... (lulz). Seriously, belief is not required.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
I don't think the answer is dependent upon biblical interpretation but rather upon how evolution is defined.
Its not a matter of how evolution is defined, but how well it is understood and accepted.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Jarrett_Ludolph
The answer to this question is contingent upon individual interpretation of the Bible. So...yes AND no.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
There is nothing in the Bible that directly disallows abortion.There most certainly are. God says that He hates the shedding of innocent blood as the very first principle of respecting human life. That would directly disavow abortion. Then there is the principle of going forth and multiplying. Also, all human life is created in the image and likeness of God, therefore it is God's right to give and take life (human beings are only given a short time on this earth to come to or reject God), not ours. There are also numerous verses I could employ to show that God values the unborn human being.
Already addressed: "[...] I know an indirect argument against abortion can be extricated from the Bible as well, but this can hardly stand against an explicitly pro-abortion god."
On the moral aspect of abortion alone you have a see-saw of okay or not okay which begs the question of which is the correct position. How do you determine this, from an atheistic framework???
What is this 'see-saw' you refer to? My core position is simple and unchanging: there is no right to use the body of another without consent. Also, I don't determine anything from an "atheistic framework" Atheism is not a moral philosophy. Your inability to understand this is an issue you need to resolve - it holds us from having a much more meaningful conversation.
Although Christians are pro-life I never once used a God-centred argument against abortion in our debates. I don't need to. Abortion is wrong in most cases based on what is killed and upon the principle of justice.
Some Christians are pro-choice...I wonder if you think they are operating on some "atheistic framework"? And a god-centered argument related to laws in a secular nation would easily be dismantled - I assumed you knew better than to try.
Why are you only mentioning one side of the equation?
Because the "will of god" is not being used to manipulate votes and increase political power on the other side...
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Given that humanistic interests came before Christianity, it can only be that your god-based morality is fortified with humanism - not the other way around.I was a little rushed and did not have time to check over what I had written. I did not explain why I think your statement is an either/or fallacy or a false dilemma. You think that because there were humanists before there were Christians that Christianity is influenced by humanism and not the other way around, that humanism was influenced by rejecting God's moral commandments, yet choosing the same in many cases. Why does Christianity have to be centred on humanism rather than being fortified and centred on the biblical God of the OT? And why does humanism have to come before God? You first have to establish which came first.
I don't hold Christianity is centered on humanism. There is undeniably humanism within Christian morality, but this is not the focus of (fundamentalistic) Christian morality. Christian morality is about doing the will of a non-human god (as determined by humans). In the OT (and throughout history), we all too often see this 'will' benefiting those who claim to speak for god and not humanity in general. This dissonance makes clear Christian morality is not interchangeable with humanism. It's not a matter of which came first, but of the two not meshing well and knowing which came first.
It is not my position humanism came before "God" - that would require me to believe the Christian god exists...which, - *surprise!* - I don't. If you think God came before humanism, well, that's your burden. Good luck. My position is merely that humanism came before the religion from which "God" is the object of worship and that it was conscripted into a tortured marriage to said religion.
You fail to state how humanism, which works on natural explanations and human reasoning alone, can explain the ought from the is. Your moral basis continues to be shown to work on subjectivism and the subjectivist fallacy (relativism), or from borrowing from another worldview that can justify morality because it has what is necessary.
First, let me squash the notion that you can overcome the Hume's guillotine by appealing to "God is". You can't. Ought from "God is" is still an ought from an is, and there is no getting around that. Secondly, the basis of your morality is subjective not objective. From "God is" you derive God's will. This is a subjective standard. You value this and think everyone else should as well. God's will, as you understand it, disallows abortion (for instance). With God's will as the (subjective) standard, abortion is objectively wrong. If I agree to your interpretation of God's will, then you and I could objectively determine moral views. Unfortunately, we don't agree to this standard because, for me, there is insufficient evidence for belief in god.
On the other hand, a moral basis of human well-being is something generally accepted. This too is a subjective standard. With human well-being as a standard, we can objectively determine moral views which coincide with it. Fortunately, most people agree to this standard, and if they don't, well, they have no business weighing in on human morality (and I don't even think they are talking about morality).
For instance, you think that because you believe abortion is a 'woman's right to choose,' that makes it right. You think that something can be true for one person and not another, but what is true, morally speaking, must be so for all people, or you lose sight of objectivity and universality.
No, I think a 'right to choose' comes from self ownership and the right to bodily autonomy is true for all people. You're a horrible mind-reader! Maybe you should ask honest questions rather than trying to read my mind...
You have never shown that the unborn is not a human being (although you have likened it to a group of cells, or not as human), although you have degraded it of value by references of dehumanization and discrimination. You have never shown how there can be justice and equality when some humanity members are treated unequally or less than others by subjective laws. What makes that right?
Depending on the level of development, the unborn may be a group of cells...a human group of cells, and I don't need to show the unborn is not a person to argue for bodily autonomy. Being a person doesn't give you the right to use my kidneys without my consent. Likewise, being a person wouldn't give the unborn the right to use reproductive organs without consent. Anti-abortionists advocate, not for equal rights, but for special rights. How is this not 'true for one and not another' you suggested of my view? How is this equality?
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
If your argument is that morality cannot be justified without belief in the Christian god, then the fact that most people don't have that belief and act perfectly moral is a defeator (not an argument from popularity). It counters the assertion that belief in the Christian god is needed for morality.First off, they don't live perfectly moral.
Agreed - poor choice of words. Non-Christians live just as morally as Christians.
They sometimes act better than believers and act 'morally' despite not being able to justify why they should. What they do is borrow from another worldview in living life contrary and inconsistently within the bounds of their own worldview system
You attribute humanism to your god and then say non-Christians borrow from your worldview, but this is demonstrably flawed. Morality is about the well-being of humans, and humans were concerned about what actions and attitudes ensured their survival long before Christianity came to be. Christian morality is made better by humanistic interests, but the relationship is not symbiotic - Christianity is parasitic to humanism (most especially in regards to fundamentalism). Where "god's will" and humanism conflict, the former is always given dominance by the dogmatist. Case in point: attempted justification of Biblical slavery because "God".
And most through human history have believed in God or gods....an actual argument from popularity.It is just a fact.
Ok, it's just a fact most people are non-Christians (and are just as moral as Christians).
No, I have stated that I only stand for and defend the biblical God. I believe all others are fake.
Ah, so your fact above is irrelevant to your point?
If not, then this fact couldn't help you even if it weren't logically fallacious.What is fallacious about the biblical God?
You've lost the context. Argument from popularity was the context ("Most people through human history have believed in God or gods").
I have always stated there is a correct interpretation of Scripture, and I point to the Scriptures as the final standard in arguing disputes. I have reasoned that the type of slavery you are suggesting as being practiced by Israel is a misinterpretation based on several arguments, one of which is God's warning not to do what was done to them in Egypt and two, the principle of loving your neighbour. I had also argued that the 'slave' was not to be treated harshly, even when punishment was required. The slave was given the same treatment that a Hebrew was in punishment. If the slave was injured in a prescribed way, they were granted freedom. The foreign slave could be acquired in two ways, through war (thus restitution) or purchasing.
You have actually argued for slavery in the name of god ...today...so ..yea, you have no room to talk. Besides, this undermines the assertion that belief in the Christian god justifies morality.I have given sufficient reason for biblical slavery. You do not accept it, but the argument is logical. I have asked how a God who promotes love for our neighbours could also promote mistreatment of them? Again, you misread God's intent by not understanding the ANE or Scripture.
There is no such thing as "sufficient reason for slavery". You cherry pick verses and compartmentalize arguments so as to avoid the obvious broader conclusion that the Bible (and the god of the Bible) condone forced servitude, sexual slavery, and the severe mistreatment of chattel slaves. 'Neighbor' in the OT wasn't referring to the guy that lived next door, but those (men) who shared beliefs - 'neighbors' were Hebrews. With this understanding, one can love their neighbors while beating their (non-Hebrew) slave just short of death, sell their daughters as sexual concubines, take virgins as the spoils of war, etc., and there be no conflict in the law. You attempt to advance the golden rule AND argue for things which no one would want for themselves. It is you who does not understand your own Bible.
No, Hitler's antisemitism was not rooted in Christian theology.
It may not be part of *your* Christian theology, but Hitler's hatred of the Jew was rooted in *his* interpretation of Christian theology - a.k.a. the will of god.
Apartheid read into Scripture because they ignored the audience of the address.The South's view on slavery was one that God explicitly warned His people (Israel) against under the Old Covenant. God made the Old Covenant obsolete in AD 70.
It is so ironic you are arguing against the interpretation of god's will by others because you (apparently) have correctly interpreted the will of god. I think the point may be lost on you.
Even the current resistance to abortion is a manipulation of Christian theology to affect political gain.How is that?
So glad you asked. There is nothing in the Bible that directly disallows abortion. In fact, there are many instances of the Biblical god committing or condoning the destruction of fetuses and infants (Isaiah 13:18; Hosea 9:10-16; Hosea 13:!6; 2 Kings 8:12). A prescribed process to cause fetuses to be aborted as proof of adultery (Numbers 5:11-31). Life begins with "the breath of life" ie. birth (Gen 2:7). Fetuses are not persons (Ex 21:22-25). And yes, I know an indirect argument against abortion can be extricated from the Bible as well, but this can hardly stand against an explicitly pro-abortion god.
Furthermore, politician's views on abortion did not break down along party lines until the 1970's. It was Richard Nixon that first pushed a pro-abortion stance, but reversed his position specifically to attract Catholics and conservatives. Seeing his success, Republicans strategists began using an anti-abortion position to form alliances with evangelical groups and social conservatives. It was all about using an interpretation of "God's will' to attract more voters and political power.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
This claim is unfalsifiable.Not for those who are true believers.You don't seem to understand what "unfalsifiable" means.Sorry, a misunderstanding on my part.
I want to compliment you, Peter. You admit fault and you've integrated some awareness of logical fallacies into your repertoire. Kudos, sir.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
How does your personal opinion and preference make something right if you have no objective unchanging/fixed source or reference point?
How can you go north, east, west or south without an unchanging/fixed source or reference point?
P.S. Magnetic north isn't a fixed reference point - it moves.
P.S.S. Human interpretation of the 'will of God' isn't a fixed reference point either and can be used to support atrocities and oppose equality. (Holocaust, apartheid, Transatlantic slave trade)
P.S.S.S. I think you're dropping the argument: post 365. You called me out on this thread..are we done?
Created:
-->
@FLRW
Doesn't a stupid person think that a loving God created pediatric cancer?
No, not necessarily, but the idea is certainly stupid.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
In fairness, believing in a loving god doesn't make people stupid. People go from belief to non-belief (and vice versa) all the time and there is absolutely no change in their IQ.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Agreed. I've pointed that out to PGA, but he continues to ignore. I thought pointing out how his own arguments don't mesh with indentured servitude might be a better approach.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
I have denied from the start that biblical slavery is the same as chattel slavery.
Yea, well, you're just wrong, and you squash your own denial when you argue for forced slavery for the purpose of conversion. I mean, seriously, if it's forced it can't be indentured servitude.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
If I try to distill your question down to something meaningful, I get something along the lines of 'How do you as a non-Christian justify morality?' This strikes me as utterly tone-deaf and arrogant given:1) most people aren't Christian.That is a fallacious argument. (argumentum ad populum)
If your argument is that morality cannot be justified without belief in the Christian god, then the fact that most people don't have that belief and act perfectly moral is a defeator (not an argument from popularity). It counters the assertion that belief in the Christian god is needed for morality.
And most through human history have believed in God or gods.
...an actual argument from popularity. Also, are you now arguing for ANY god whatsoever? If not, then this fact couldn't help you even if it weren't logically fallacious.
2) Christianity has been specifically used to justify things like slavery, Holy wars, etc,So what? People do all kinds of things 'in the name of.' That does not necessarily mean they follow the teachings.
You have actually argued for slavery in the name of god ...today...so ..yea, you have no room to talk. Besides, this undermines the assertion that belief in the Christian god justifies morality.
3) what good may be recognized in its moral views come from humanistic interests which predate and can stand apart from it.That is one way of looking at it.
Given that humanistic interests came before Christianity, it can only be that your god-based morality is fortified with humanism - not the other way around.
Any moral view? So you like Hitler's moral view regarding the Jews! You like Apartheid South Africa's view of segregation and the South's moral view on slavery, and of course, I know you like the view that it is okay to kill innocent unborn human beings. You don't quite see them up to par with other human beings.
I didn't say any moral view in general, but any moral view which puts people above the human interpretation of the will of god - that's pretty specific. Secondly, you've provided great examples of humans interpreting the 'will of god' causing problems. It seems Hitler's antisemitism was rooted in Christian theology, a 'god-given right' to control land was at the core to apartheid, and the South's moral view was perpetuated by a Biblical understanding. Even the current resistance to abortion is a manipulation of Christian theology to affect political gain.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Conversion equalled freedom! [...]Conversion is an escape from slavery and bondage just as it was in OT times. [...]So, the principle of evangelism slavery is reasonable to believe. But even if you did find this evangelistic slavery principle hard to stomach, the principle of slavery and freedom is well demonstrated in a physical sense in the OT and in a spiritual way in the NT. [...]War reparations or restitution [a.k.a slavery] was a different principle, the principle of damages owed, damages paid. [...]
It should be noted you've shifted from denying Biblically condoned slavery to offering a justification for it.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Until you are able to come up with an apples to apples comparison, there is really no defense needed.Okay, I got your meaning. Then we are comparing the applies of Christianity to the applies of atheism. Both you and I believe in morality. The question is how you validate morality as an atheist. Then, in comparing your justification with mine, which is more reasonable.
Actually, I don't think you get my meaning. Atheism isn't a moral philosophy, so your question isnt coherent - it is not a reasonable ask.
If I try to distill your question down to something meaningful, I get something along the lines of 'How do you as a non-Christian justify morality?' This strikes me as utterly tone-deaf and arrogant given:
1) most people aren't Christian.
2) Christianity has been specifically used to justify things like slavery, Holy wars, etc,
3) what good may be recognized in its moral views come from humanistic interests which predate and can stand apart from it.
So, ANY moral view which puts people above human interpretations of the 'will of a god' will be more reasonable in my view.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
I am comparing apples to oranges. Applies is Christianity; oranges is atheism.
Lol, I don't disagree. I refer you back to my previous comment:
Until you are able to come up with an apples to apples comparison, there is really no defense needed.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Would you accept spectral evidence alone to convict you of a murder you haven't committed yet?No, how could anyone be so stupid?A person cannot be convicted of a crime that has not been committed?
Haha, so it does matter who makes the prophecy and who interprets it as fulfilled? Again, you implicitly acknowledge your standard of evidence isn't near as strong as your pretend. IF spectral evidence were all that, how could you deny it...even if use against you?
Truth is the gauge by which falsehood is measured. For there to be a counterfeit there must be a real to compare the counterfeit against. Once I have the real I have the standard.
If you determine what's real by anecdote, hearsay, and spectral evidence (which you wouldn't accept to convict you of murder), then you can't really say you know what is real and counterfeit.
It is impossible that two contrary things can be true at the same time regarding the same thing.
It is possible for 2 contrary things to both be false.
Nothing can be 'simpler' than an infinite being, amIright?!That is not my argument. The explanation is simple. He merely spoke the universe into existence. Very simple in comparison to let's say the Big Bang.
The explanation has fewer words, but it is not simpler because it is contingent on an eternal omnipotent being.
Also, if you're willing to admit a subjective being can be objective...then you provide all that is needed for morality without the need for a god.I am speaking of interpretation of the Bible and in understanding others. In the case of morality I question what the objective standard you profess that excludes God. You have still to reveal that objective standard you speak of.
You weigh your actions against what you believe the Biblical god wants to objectively determine right and wrong. This is subjective. You pretend to have an objective source for morality, but you (like everyone else) have a subjective morality.
I think you, and many people, overly complicate morality. We only need to agree on something by which to measure our actions. Your preference is god. Mine is well-being.
No. I'm saying all too often what cannot be explained by our current understanding of nature is considered supernatural or attributed to it.Supernatural would exclude nature as an explanation. If it is not natural it must be a being - yes or no?
What? I don't see how that follows.
Or are you speaking of a force such as in Starwars? If a force lacks personhood what can it do and would that force not be considered natural too, since it owes no explanation to personhood?
I'm simply pointing out that the supernatural lays claim to an increasingly smaller slice of the cosmos as our knowledge of nature increases.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Consider other verses which show the God of the Bible does not consider other peoples equal to Israel. (The notion of "God's chosen people" speaks to this)The verses I provided make that distinction clear (Exodus 21 and Leviticus 25:44-46).You ignore other verses that clarify what God expected in the treatment of others. And in no way was the treatment the same as in Egypt or other ANE cultures. It was better. As already pointed out, and you cannot deny it for it is Scripture, a 'slave' must be bought, not kidnapped from other lands. Kidnapping was punishable by death. That meant that a slave would have to agree to serve a Hebrew master.Egyptian slavery was a bondage and oppression that God never wanted Israel to duplicate. It was a type of servitude that God forbade. Time and time again, God wants us to treat others as we want others to be treated. If you are blessed by wealth and can afford to hire others God still wants you to treat them with respect and dignity.
It seems your primary argument against Biblically condoned slavery is that 'it couldn't be slavery because slaves must be bought/ kidnapping is disallowed', suggesting Biblical slavery was always voluntary and some form of indentured servitude. You also point to verses referring to 'foreigners which live among you' being treated with respect as though foreigners were to always to be treated as equal to Israelites. This is simplistic cherry picking oblivious to what the Bible actually allows.
Non-Israelite slaves were permanent property and could be acquired by purchase (Lev 25:44-46) or captured during war (Deut 20:14). Yes, kidnapping Hebrews to enslave them is punishable by death (Deut 24:7), but there is no such restriction regarding foreigners - war captives is a case in point of foreigners literally being kidnapped as slaves (Deut 21:10-15). The OT is very much against slavery of "God's people", but this did not extend to non-Hebrews. Indentured servitude was available to Hebrew men, but everyone else was subject to some form of slavery as we commonly understand the term.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
@Tradesecret
There were atheists long before there was any human understanding of or scientific consensus on the matter of evolution. That invalidates your theory.Saying god made all the stuff doesn't tell us how or why there is stuff so your hypothesis offers no useful answers.
Agreed.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Also, as related to this thread, atheism/theism are not moral philosophies....neither are reasonable from a moral standpoint. In your thread you drop the theistic ambiguity and name Christianity, which is a moral view, but again, you compare it to atheism which is not a moral philosophy. The comparison itself is not reasonable.Its like you're pitting "Kumbaya" against silence and asking which is better music. There is a category error in the comparison.I only defend one moral theistic position for I believe that the many contrary positions cannot all be true/valid. Thus, I always point to the Christian God.
Then it shouldn't be too hard for you to concede you are not defending theism but a particular view which falls under the label of theism. Additionally, if theism (a broad belief in god) is not a moral view, then atheism (a broad non-belief in god) is not a moral view either. Until you are able to come up with an apples to apples comparison, there is really no defense needed.
/end thread.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Despite arguments to the contrary - Atheists believe in doctrines and dogmas.
Perhaps, but not because of atheism (there are no 'atheist doctrines or dogmas').
An atheist chooses not to believe in God despite the evidence to the contrary.
Beliefs are informed by reasons...sometimes good reasons and sometimes bad. The reasons compel belief - there is no 'choice'. This is the same for theists and atheists.
Yet, an atheist MUST believe in the doctrine of EVOLUTION. There is no contrary doctrine.
How do you explain atheists who reject evolution? Are you suggesting they are not real atheists?
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
No, I would not want to be found guilty on anecdotal evidence or hearsay. I fail to see how that ties in with God. God has given all kinds of reasonable evidence, of which you are brushing off. I offered to debate you on the subject of prophecy, as to its reasonableness.
Prophecy would fall under 'spectral evidence' which you've noticeably neglected to mention, but this too is not admissible in a court of law. Would you accept spectral evidence alone to convict you of a murder you haven't committed yet? I seriously doubt it. It seems you understand the standard of evidence you're advocating is insufficient for a court of law which would certainly make it insufficient to 'convict' the Biblical god of existence. Something to think about...
You are being ridiculous. One object plus another object equals two objectives. 1+1=2. It does not equal something else. If Christianity is true then all other gods and religious beliefs (of which I include atheism as a belief) are false. It is as simple as that. But it is difficult to convince and unbeliever since they have invested their whole outlook on another system of thought. Therefore, I have challenged you, based on atheism, to show yours is more reasonable than my Christian belief in the area of morality, of which you have to date avoided doing.
In that case, your reasons for belief are not impossibility of the contrary. How can you argue impossibility of the contrary without evaluating the "contrary"? Aren't you just assuming the truth of your view without going through the standard you claim?
I provided a response to your challenge in post #238.
You are confusing God as a person with God as an explanation. God as an explanation is simple.
Nothing can be 'simpler' than an infinite being, amIright?!
How does 'subject' apply to God? I think you are confusing two different things, that a subjective being cannot be objective. Then how does God qualify? He knows all things. How would His knowledge be subjective?
Is it your position an omniscient being is incapable of subjectivity? How would you square that with the Biblical god having a "chosen people"?! Also, if you're willing to admit a subjective being can be objective...then you provide all that is needed for morality without the need for a god.
Are you saying that something supernatural is not personal,
No. I'm saying all too often what cannot be explained by our current understanding of nature is considered supernatural or attributed to it.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Yes, Israel experienced chattel slavery in Egypt.
Per the Bible, Israel experienced chattel slavery in Egypt. This was never in contention.
No, He did not codify chattel slavery. He forbid Israel from practicing the same harsh treatment that Israel experienced in Egypt.
The verses you provide taken alone might be used to support your interpretation, but this is very much cherry picking. Consider other verses which show the God of the Bible does not consider other peoples equal to Israel. (The notion of "God's chosen people" speaks to this)The verses I provided make that distinction clear (Exodus 21 and Leviticus 25:44-46). I could provide others, but I don't think you're open to that possibility. Of course, if you are I can provide verses which may broaden your interpretation.
God orders the Israelites to make a distinction between the Hebrew servants and the those of foreign nations. They were:
· Allowed to 'buy' (not take!) slaves from foreign nations around them...· Finally, it should be noted that the passage says that they "can" make them slaves for life--not that they "were automatically" slaves for life. Somehow, freedom was the default and lifetime slavery only an 'option'.The Great Escape Clause…?
Deut 23.15 has this fascinating passage:
If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand him over to his master. 16 Let him live among you wherever he likes and in whatever town he chooses. Do not oppress him. (Deut 23.15)..."A slave could also be freed by running away. According to Deuteronomy, a runaway slave is not to be returned to its master. He should be sheltered if he wishes or allowed to go free, and he must not be taken advantage of (Deut 23:16-17). This provision is strikingly different from the laws of slavery in the surrounding nations and is explained as due to Israel's own history of slaves. It would have the effect of turning slavery into a voluntary institution."Remember also, Exodus 21:16 forbids kidnapping, thus a slave would have to be bought, per above, thus not against their will.
The mental gymnastics here is impressive. 'Lifetime slavery is only an option' - who's option - the master or the slave. (Hint - it's not the slave). This alone is a concession that the Bible does codify slavery.
Created: