ludofl3x

-->

@PGA2.0

Okay. Which opposing social norms are the true right? Are you saying that they both are?

Neither are inherently "right." They're just what we've agreed upon works for the species. As we dominate all resources on the planet, it's worked out well.

That means that you can't really say something is wrong, just not preferable. Do you really believe that?

I can absolutely say I think something is wrong.

So you are saying that there is no such thing as 'right'; nothing is absolutely wrong, like raping women for fun or torturing little children for fun? So, when someone chooses to torture you for fun, there is nothing wrong with that; you perhaps don't like it.

When someone chooses to torture me for fun, I will defend myself, because I find that's the moral thing to do, and I feel the people acting to harm me ire in the wrong. So then it becomes not a moral issue, it becomes a survival issue. I suspect you're conflating "wrong" and "morally wrong" with "illegal." Keep them distinct as one has nothing to do with the other.

God designed humans with a will, volition. That means we can choose. God also told humanity what was good and what was evil in relationships

Everything in this post is irrelevant. Why would god design homosexual people if he abhors the way he makes them? You're doing another great job of winning Wordiest Idiot.

Created:

4 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@PGA2.0

The study is implying what you're saying is moral behavior (reducing distress in our own species) is not in any way uniquely human, and it's not even the only study to demonstrate what we'd consider' morals' in animals. If it is not uniquely human, and rats don't give a fig about Jesus or Vishnu, then morality is not contingent on any god.

Created:

4 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@RoderickSpode

If you were to ask if intuitive thoughts all originate from God, that I don't know.

I'll see if I can't take the temperature down here, maybe I'm crabby this morning and it's just me. Apologies, sincerely.

Is there any reliable way to determine the distinction between regular intuition and divine communication? It sounds like you think the answer is somewhere near 'not really.' And god doesn't always communicate in subtle ways, right? The burning bush, telling Abraham to drag his kid up on a mountain and kill him, Saul's road to Damascus experience...so were all these versions of mental illness?

I'm not one who claims we need God for morality.

Great, then we can drop this one, as many Christians DO believe you need god for morality, even if you don't think he's real. If god isn't responsible for morality, we can cross that off the list of benefits to believing in him I guess.

f God changes his stance on not judging others, then God has moved away from His moral stance. In principle I would say I wouldn't obey, but an all powerful God could also take control of my person and force me to do such a thing. Or, God also has the power to change my mind tow here I end up obeying. Or, I can't say for sure that I wouldn't be coerced through threats.

Did god ever change his stance on not judging them? The whole "should a man lay with another man as he lay with a woman, they are an abomination and shall surely be put to death" thing. I know there's a whole shift to "love everyone" popular in modern Christianity, but there sure seem to be plenty of Christians who still think it's a sin to be gay, and the opposition to gay marriage is exclusively religiously based. I don't think the bible features a passage that cancels this command anywhere NEAR as explicitly as the passage that condemns it. Interesting question raised by your subsequent sentence though: if god decided to change your mind, or took away your power of control to say no, or coerced you, would that god still be moral?

Again, you're forced to jump to an entirely different religion to pin some atrocity on Christianity. I don't know how you can actually maneuver your fingers to type such nonsense.

I actually have plenty of Christian examples, but I used Islamic terror to get us both on the same page (religious extremism supported by a reading of the holy text) and use a very recent and very visible example if the phenomena I'm talking about. Do you think Islam played NO PART in 9/11 somehow?

There's plenty of less acute Christian examples, from recent times, too. People using Christianity as an excuse to threaten Planned Parenthood, or as an excuse to scream in the face of a 15 year old on the way into an abortion clinic. Or standing along a soldier's funeral procession with sings that say God hates fags. I don't think these are the FAULT of the bible: I think people that want to be assholes will find any excuse to do so, or none, but you can't deny that these folks CITE THE BIBLE as a reason. They have clearly derived a permission structure from the book, because they think if they don't do it, they're disobeying God's will at peril to their own souls. Sounds like...coercion. How you call this observation absurd is beyond me, I mean these are well documented. Google them. These nuts with the guns going into polling places? LOTS of overlap with evangelical Christianity in that community dude. How's that far from Islamists declaring fatwahs based on the Quran?

Books aren't dangerous in and of themselves, they are totally inert. If no one reads them or no one thinks they're real, how's a book do any harm?

Created:

4 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@FLRW

BLASPHEMER! THAT IS RIDICULOUS! SHOW ME A BOOK THAT HAS 5000 TECHNICIANS IN IT AND HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THE BIG QUESTIONS! SHOW ME DAMMIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Created:

4 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@RoderickSpode

Dude.

You said this:

I don't know any Christians who hear voices in their head. Period. That's a mental illness. When a Christian uses terminology like hearing the voice of God, they're not talking about hearing voices in the head.

I asked WHAT ARE THEY TALKING ABOUT. You said "you tell me." I don't know! That's why I'm asking. What's with the piteous

I find it interesting you say you'd definitely defy god's command even though it's a sin to do so. It's as if you don't need god at all to make moral decisions!
You're so focused on this I got you trapped theme that you're only picking up about 20% of what I'm saying.

I really don't think so. I think you think you're doing some philosophical impression of whatever you think a deep religious thinker does, but you're not. You're just throwing a tandtrum when all I'm doing is asking a siimple question, and you don't even try to refute the obvious conclusion: if you would disobey an order from god to harass your fellow humans, then it's pretty clear no one needs god to make a moral decision. That's good news!

Still not clear what a four year old has to do with anything. Are you saying that god is the parent and it's not the child (CHristian's) place to

question why he wants to harass or murder

homosexuals? I mean at 4 years old, you have the evolutionary naivete to need to believe your parent, but a) you can and many people do grow up to hold different beliefs from their
parents and (b) there's no eternal penalty for doing so. Not exactly apples to apples.

Why don't you just tell me what you think (as that's really what this is about).

What I said is what I think. I'm not sure why it's unclear: the question is what the hell does a parent and a four year old have t do with the proposition?

I don't think the bible is inherently dangerous. I think it gives potentially dangerous people an excuse to do things that they normally wouldn't do, but all god concepts do that. Divine mandate absolves us of responsibility, s when people think god wants them to crash an airplane into a building and there's a big reward waiting if you do so, that is enough to move a dangerous person from "I'm pretty pissed off, but I'm not going to kill myself or anyone else over it" to "WHo am I to deny the will of god?"

Created:

4 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@FLRW

Well yeah maybe, but only because god set it up that way, duh.

Created:

4 years ago

1

Posted in:

I don't know any Christians who hear voices in their head. Period. That's a mental illness. When a Christian uses terminology like hearing the voice of God, they're not talking about hearing voices in the head.

Ok, so what ARE they talking about?

I find it interesting you say you'd definitely defy god's command even though it's a sin to do so. It's as if you don't need god at all to make moral decisions!

Still not clear what a four year old has to do with anything. Are you saying that god is the parent and it's not the child (CHristian's) place to question why he wants to harass or murder homosexuals? I mean at 4 years old, you have the evolutionary naivete to need to believe your parent, but a) you can and many people do grow up to hold different beliefs from their parents and (b) there's no eternal penalty for doing so. Not exactly apples to apples.

Created:

4 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@PGA2.0

@3RU7AL

Might make you wonder why god would design people so that women can fall in love with women, or men can fall in love with men, or sexual gratification could be derived from relationships like that. Kind of a shitty design if it's going to piss god off so much. It's not really all that hard, look at how electrical outlets are designed: you cant plug a plug into a plug, and you can't push two outlets together to make electricity. That's by design. IT's almost as if this grand designer with an all time plan had no real clue this would all happen!

Like why get so mad at people for jerking off, if you didn't want them to do that why make it so easy and fun to do? Why not just make genitals non-responsive to self stimulation, then you don't have to burn a bunch of muslim kids in hell forever over it.

Created:

4 years ago

2

Posted in:

-->

@PGA2.0

[1] Morality is a set of social norms or conventions

Agree!

that have to have as their basis a fixed standard to know what is the case.

Requires demonstration.

Otherwise, all you have is a set of preferences or desires people in power force others to accept.

It's not people in power. It's consensus. People in power make laws, not morals or morality. Populations seem to come to a consensus on what is moral.

Created:

4 years ago

2

Posted in:

-->

@RoderickSpode

What if your parents, as you were growing up, after teaching you to be kind and respect people, one day changed their mind and told you to harass gays?

I would not harass gays if my parents told me to do it. Your turn,

No. I don't hear voices in the head. That would be a delusion.

Interesting, so do you think other Christians who claim to hear god's voice when they pray are deluded? What about all the people in the bible tow whom god spoke directly, were they deluded as well?

If God woke me up to tell me anything it wouldn't matter whether I was convinced or not. It would be fact, reality, perceived as such or not.

I just want to be clear I'm understandinng the distinction you're making. If you hear god's voice in your dreams or in your head, you're deluded, but if you are awake and you hear it, you are dealing with reality. Do I have that right? SO now you can pick which version of this impossibly difficult question you cananswer, since I unequivocally answered yours:

1: If you woke up convinced you heard god's voice tell you to go out and start harassing gays, would you deny his command?

OR

2: IF you were awake and totally lucid and walking down the street in your San Francisco area, and suddenly heard a voice that you were sure was god, or somehow got whatever you would consider communication directly from the almighty himself, to start harassing the many gay people in your city, would you do so?

BOnus one, even easier: is it a sin to deny the commands of god?

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@RoderickSpode

Rod, come on now. I can't answer your question because I don't know what it refers to (You can see me ask "about what?", right?). DO you mean what would i do if god told me to harass gay people? I wouldn't do so.

If you can assume God exists for the sake argument, it might help in our conversation.

I am ALREADY granting that god exists, that's who you hear in your head right before you wake up and decide if you have to harass gay people by divine order. Are you ever going to answer this question? My guess is no.

What you're (inadvertantly?) asking is what if our delusion changes.

LOL, no, Rod, I am not, in any way, asking that question, inadvertently or accidentally or intentionally. What I am asking is very, very simple: if you woke up convinced that god told you to get up and go start harassing gay people in the name of Jesus or whatever, would you do it?

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

I am about to become a monk ama

So why aren't you about to be a monk at the place you chose? I mean the topic is AMA, which as far as I understand means 'ask me anything.'

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@RoderickSpode

Your parents teach you to be kind. Kindness is an act of morality. So, based on this alone one can say they are moral. Then one day they change their tune, go the complete

opposite direction (basically change their mind), and tell you to hate everyone.

People who teach others to hate are not moral people. How does that have 'nothing to do with the question," it's the very CORE of your question. THe second a parent decides to actively teach their child to hate someone or some group, they are ceding moral high ground, they are committing an immoral act. What would I do ABOUT WHAT?

Your lack of an answer to my question is telling: are you moral or immoral, righteous or a sinner, if you heard God's voice tell you to immediately start harassing the next gay person you saw on the streets, and you decided to refuse to do so? Why is this such a hard question?

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

The God Topic

-->

@Tradesecret

The question I have is what type of evidence are you looking for? Philosophical? Biological? Geological? Rational? Revelation? Magical? Supernatural?

You missed the ones people actually care about: demonstrable. Independently verifiable. Irrefutable. Got anything like that? Also you skipped the first real question: which god or gods do you propose evidence for?

When asked to produce evidence for God's existence, I am actually limited by nothing because everything is evidence for God's existence.

This doesn't seem like very compelling evidence. How, for example, is covid19 evidence for a god's existence? Specifically. I am sure you must have some answer besides "Well god put it there, and therefore it's evidence of god." Certainly you can see what a ridiculous argument this would make .

Their most used argument is "that this can be explained by something else". I really do not see how that argument is actually used since it does not refute God or his existence.

Because the alternate explanation doesn't REQUIRE god to exist in order to explain anything. For example, why do earthquakes happen? Is it because of divine retribution or anger? Or is it because the tectonic plates and a cooling planet are subject to complete natural laws like contraction and fluid dynamics, and every once in a while they rub up against one another or go under one another or unstick from one another and release energy that we feel as an earthquake? The correct answer is the latter, which modern day theists tend to accept, but they say "Also because that's how god set it up, though." You can see which part of this argument can be DEMONSTRATED to be true, and the other is a tacked on assertion with no substantiation. Earthquakes are evidence of plate tectonics being real and the science behind their study being sound. We can agree on that, right? Now, tell me why you think it's true to add a god to the mix, like what problem does that solve? How do you get there, what convinces you that leaves so many others (i.e. anyone who does not believe in your god) unconvinced? In order to disagree with plate tectonics, which you're free to do, of course, you'd have to demonstrate a better theory at work. In order to disagree with it AND PUT GOD IN ITS PLACE, you simply just say "because Jesus" or "because VIshnu" or "Because Hephaestes / Gaia / Odin."

What would be helpful in the discussion is this. For an atheist to produce any evidence that GOD does not exist.

You're asking the juror in a criminal case to prove that the person accused by the prosecution didn't do what they're accused of. That's not how it works. Theists essentially accuse god of existing. Atheists simply say "Let's evaluate the evidence," then you present terrible evidence, and when we find ourselves unconvinced, you essentially tell the jury to prove your case is faulty and how. LEt's take an example: you wake up tomorrow to find our your neighbor, who lived alone, was killed in their house overnight. You and your neighbor were not at odds, and you live alone. It's reasonable to assume, according to your standard, that you murdered your neighbor because (a) he's dead and (b) he's your neighbor and (c) you can't prove that you didn't do it. In your estimation, should you be arrested? Where should the burden of proof be in this case? In a court of law, you don't get to accuse someone of murder, then wait for the defense attorney to prove definitively that their client DIDN'T do it. You are making the claim, you have to provide the evidence. If you were accused of a crime, would you want the law to treat you thus? "The accusation of a crime is evidence of that crime, so therefore, Tradesecret, you must prove definitively that you didn't do what we're accusing you of, if you can't, you did it"?

ETA: the reason I'm not the defense attorney is atheists are NOT accusing god(s) of not existing. Atheists only evaluate the evidence and come to a conclusion. YOu're mistaking "I don't see any reason to believe what you're telling me is true, so I'm concluding that your argument is wrong, and it looks for all intents and purposes like no god esists to me," for plainly "God doesn't exist and I am sure of it and can prove it."

Created:

4 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@RoderickSpode

To Weakeredge's question: if God ordered you to do it, which is the moral act: obedience or disobedience?
If moral parents who raised their child teaching them to be kind all of a sudden told their child to hate, what would be the moral or right response from the child?

Answer my question: if god told you to do it, is it moral or immoral of you to do it? If you woke up from a dream SURE you heard God's own voice telling you to go kill or even harass your gay neighbor, and you decide NO, are you righteous or a sinner now?

Moral parents don't teach children to hate. That question is a distraction, and not a very good one.

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Theweakeredge

For clarity, I don't give any credence to a god idea either,, so to me, no reason to persecute gays at all, they're just people.

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

I agree it doesn't CAUSE homophobia. Does it give PERMISSION to be homophobic, permission to persecute gays? Instructions on how to do so? Could someone predisposed tohomophobia use the bible to justify their feelings by saying things like "It's just not natural!" and "It's Adam and EVE, not Adam and Steve?"

To Weakeredge's question: if God ordered you to do it, which is the moral act: obedience or disobedience?

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@3RU7AL

Why did "YHWH" order the slaughter of prisoners (women and children)?

Numbers 31:15-18

15 And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?
16 Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the Lord in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the Lord.
17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

I would bet fair money that the answer is focused on the kindness shown by god to let the Israelites keep the women children for themselves, rather than put them to death, too, and ignores the slaughter you refer to, because we simply don't understand the Ancient Near East culture, and how it was moral to kill prisoners, because what were you going to do with them? It would have actually been UNKIND to let them live! Again ignoring that these people (The slain and captured) were created by god specifcally NOT TO KNOW god so that the chosen people had someone to slaughter in a show of their devotion to him. Makes total sense when you look at it that way!

Either that or "Kill every woman that hath known a man" actually means to be overly kind to them, and that is the origin of the phrase kill them with kindness, according to some obscure 19th century Hebrew scholar.

Created:

4 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@PGA2.0

Sure you can make up meaning, but ultimately it means nothing.

Yes, and....? So what?

Something came from nothing!!!

Or the stuff in the universe was always around in various forms, cycling from big bang to big crunch eternally.

Next, if there is no intention then there is no purpose for the universe being here.

Again, so what?

Are we being consistent with such a universe as that?

I've asked this like a million times: WHY IS IT IMPORTANT TO BE "CONSISTENT" WITH THE UNIVERSE? The practical implication on every day life. I'll help: Person A is "consistent" with the universe, and therefore they can __________________, which person B, who is inconsistent with the universe, cannot. " Fill in the blank.

Why do we discover (no intent) the laws of nature? These questions are usually left blank by atheists. Do you care to answer them, or should I expect the usual silence?

I'll answer this one because it's easy: we're exceptionally good at spotting patterns., whether they're there or not. We're wrong as often as we're right.

Created:

4 years ago

1

Posted in:

The worldview of an Atheist

-->

@Tradesecret

An atheist chooses not to believe in God despite the evidence to the contrary.

An atheist doesn't CHOOSE to believe in any direction. An atheist is not convinced by the evidence you present, that's different. I can't choose to believe the moon is made of green cheese.

Yet, an atheist MUST believe in the doctrine of EVOLUTION.

Atheism doesn't address the diversity of life question. There's an overlap in people who understand evolution and atheists because they both involve assessing evidence honestly, but furthermore there are many, many Christians who understand evolution just fine.

Are you TRYING to make the most ignorant sounding topic you can? Because this is a fairly good attempt.

Created:

4 years ago

2

Posted in:

What are the creator's responsibilities to mankind?

-->

@Tradesecret

I see it more as does a governor of a prison have any responsibility towards Prisons living on death row.

Yes, they have many, many responsibilities to those prisoners. As parents have many, many responsibilities to their children. In fact, if either is found grossly neglecting these responsibilities, they can be criminally liable and relieved of their charges. So you're saying a creator would have similar responsibilities?

Created:

4 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@PGA2.0

Again, that begs the question of what is morally right? I gave you the example of abortion. Was it right then or now??? Second, if laws are made by subjective individuals, what makes those people right in their assessment?

I don't think it's got much to do with what's 'morally right," it just addresses why making laws based on morality requires those laws to be changeable with the majority view. If you disagree with a law, there are plenty of paths of recourse. It's just democracy. If your moral objections are compelling, make the argument and convince the majority, and bang, the law now comports with your morals, but until you make the argument, you don't get to say "This is moral, therefore it's legal." These are two separate and distinct notions . It's a pretty simple principle. You yourself make plenty of arguments like "well it was moral at the time to stone gays, but that changed when JEsus showed up somehow."

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@PGA2.0

Are or should laws be based on what is right and wrong? How can the two not be blended?

Morality shifts over time, and laws change accordingly, in a democratic society. Christians once thought it was moral to own black people. It was the better moral judgement of others, including some other Christians, that it is in fact immoral, in spite of what's in the bible on the matter. In any case, at least one group of Christians was reading the bible incorrectly.

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@3RU7AL

You can't deny something you have no idea of and SkepticalOne definitely has views about God. Thus, atheism is a worldview.
Atheism is a worldview in exactly the same way that NOT collecting stamps is a hobby.

Atheism is a worldview in exactly the same way that NOT swimming is a sport.

Atheism is a worldview in exactly the same way that NOT working is an occupation.

Atheism is a worldview in exactly the same way that NOT vandalizing public property is an artistic expression.

Well, that argument unraveled quickly. Well done.

Created:

4 years ago

1

Posted in:

Proving all (other) religions wrong.

-->

@3RU7AL

Christians have no capacity to offer comfort in death.

They have nothing to offer in hope.

They might think that they have the truth - which I would refute.

Yet even if they were correct- they reduce life to nothingness with no meaning - and no purpose (worship an egotistical god).

In Christianity, my "life" only has "meaning" because I'm a servant of an "all powerful" god who doesn't need me for anything except to flatter it constantly.

IT is a cruel worldview.

And i am not trying to be mean - but when you take away hope from people (by calling them servants of a god) - you need to replace it with something of at least equal worth.

Otherwise - it is a spirit of meanness.

Concise and cuttingly put. Difficult to refute, too: the meaning of a Christian life is apparently to be a perfect servant to a god who created you so poorly you're born with the sentence of eternal torture, and if you kiss his ass enough he'll allow you to enter eternity to be with him...where your reward is now an eternity of ass kissing.

Created:

4 years ago

1

Posted in:

What are the creator's responsibilities to mankind?

The responsibilities would depend on what that god wanted from its creation, which means I think you'd have to specify one. A deisitic god as I understand the idea only has one quality: it created the universe then at least functionally disappears. As this is the only quality it has, it would be strange for it to have any responsibility, because it ostensibly has no goals or desires.

Created:

4 years ago

2

Posted in:

What is your favorite argument for the existence of God?

Is anyone in here even trying anymore to argue that a god really exists? I've been following this a while and it seems we're REALLY far down the rabbit hole of reason. I think the original spirit of the topic was likely more along the lines of what's your best reason to be convinced a god is real, but we're talking about all sorts of other tengents, which, fifteen pages in, I guess is to be expected. Carry on I guess. I just don't think it's winning any converts.

Created:

4 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@RoderickSpode

“Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death.

Can you steal a person, or can you steal property? It's not illegal to BUY a man. You know slavery existed back then, right? I mean you must acknowledge that, no?

“Is not this the fast that I choose: to loose the bonds of wickedness, to undo the straps of the yoke, to let the oppressed go free, and to break every yoke?

I'm not clear on the context, so I'll go check this one eventually, but "slaves obey your masters" is in the book too, right?

“When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him

as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am theLord your God.

Literally nothing to do with slavery or oppression or beating your slaves.

“You shall not give up to his master a slave who has escaped from his master to you.

Does not prohibit slavery. Prohibits returning an escaped slave to his master for some reason.

“When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged.

Okay, so hands only. Also, doesn't say "Slavery is against my will, so free that person and if they want to stay, pay them a living wage and don't hit them, with anything."

“You shall not give up to his master a slave who has escaped from his master to you. He shall dwell with you, in your midst, in the place that he shall choose within one of your towns, wherever it suits him. You shall not wrong him.

Covered this one. Only prohibits returning a slave, doesn't endorse wholesale freedom or equality.

“Whoever takes a human life shall surely be put to death.

Tons of exceptions, and doesn't prohibit slavery or beating your slaves.

“You shall not oppress a hired servant who is poor and needy, whether he is one of your brothers or one of the sojourners who are in your land within your towns. You shall give him his wages on the same day, before the sun sets (for he is poor and counts on it), lest he cry against you to theLord, and you be guilty of sin.

"hired servants" =/= slaves man, come on. Slaves aren't hired. They're purchased according to the laws in the bible, not hired. Next you'll tell me all those plantation workers were just contract laborers.

Created:

5 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@RoderickSpode

People are going to believe what they want. Nothing can be done about it (and I wouldn't want to try).

My question is in response to this. Can this also be said about Christians as it pertains to their interpretations of the bible?

None of your passages either prohibit slavery, or beating your slaves, according to the words you've quoted. It says pay the people you hire, that's as close as it comes. I know that's not how you see it, but the words are the words. Even the "don't take a human life" must have a ton of exceptions, right? Unless the Amelkites were not humans, or the Phillistines, or the Egyptians...

Created:

5 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@RoderickSpode

If you can't see where the bible prohibits abuse of anyone including those in servitude, then you're not going to. It's an unending pattern. Fortunately, there are a few atheists here that are fairly objective, and not subject to prejudice. Not too many unfortunately.

You could always just show me the verse.

Would it be safe to say that if someone wants to see who doesn't want to see something in the bible that is actually there, as you accuse people who don't share your interpretation of the verses, that it's possible a Christian could suffer just as an atheist could from the same issue?

Created:

5 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@RoderickSpode

The bible doesn't definitely say it's legal to beat the slave so long as they don't die.

Whew! Okay, so where's the passage that prohibits it and calls out a punishment for it, like the one you cited about how you can beat them as long as they don't die. It must be superseded, right? Because here's the conversatoin, again:

Me from # 11

Under that verse, at that time, was it LEGAL for a slave owner / indentured servitude employer to do as I said. According to the verse you're saying is there to protect the servant, is it legal for that person, the owner, to slap a fifteen year old kitchen servant, knock her to the ground, and kick her in the ribs? Under that verse, is the master subject to ANY remonstration either from Jesus or from the legal system in place according to that law?

You in 12:

Oh definitely!

So maybe there's a miscommunication. You're saying either (a) it's definitely legal to do as I described per the verse you cited, since the slave doesn't die within 48 hours, or (b) it s definitely NOT legal, but then you don't cite the verse prohibiting it. According to the text, there is not room in the bible for "Don't beat slaves at all" but there IS room for "don't wear mixed fabrics" and "don't covet your neighbor's ass." Is there a verse in there that says "Don't beat a slave" full stop? Or is this one of your places where you're allowed to add your own opinion?

The law against assaulting someone in a shopping mall is covered in the general law prohibiting the act of assault.

Right! First, I know it without Jesus. Second, the law prohibits it clearly: no assault, full stop. Does the bible contain a similarly clear and comprehensive prohibition? If so please provide the citation. If not, then just say no, that's just what Rod thinks, and therefore it's a perfect interpretation of ancient texts in dead languages, from a time when it was people thought thunder was an angry god.

Truthfully, I don't think how the texts are stated would make any difference with you.

Well, I'm not an Israelite, can you blame me?

My argument is NOT that the bible should say anything at all. It's that the bible is not applicable to today's superior moral understanding of the world. It's not okay to beat the shit out of any employee, even if you're in the army, or my other favorite of yours, if you're an NFL quarterback and somehow you're 'owned' by the team like property. The bible isn't inerrant, it isn't timeless, and if you followed its rules to the letter, you'd be rightfully arrested. It's out of date as you admit right here:

The texts, the representation of the message given to the Israelites, was made clear to them. They didn't need it explained to them to pacify some forum poster/debator reading this in the 21st century.

Why do so many people, you included, need it explained to them with these contortions of meaning and logic (don't beat your slaves until they're dead within 48 hours = PROTECTING SALVES somehow, also glossing over the slave part), if it's supposed to apply across time and it's still a good book to use as a moral compass in the 21st century? I can read what's there and make up my mind about what it says, and what it says is pretty clear: beat your slaves so long as they don't die. Beat your kids all you want. Own foreigners. Hebrews are better than other races. I can read all that in very plain language and conclude that book is a provincial mythology anthology, written by people looking to justify their own view of the world, that holds no real practical value in 2020.

Created:

5 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@RoderickSpode

Oh definitely!

Then how, exactly, would this slave be protected if the bible DEFINITELY says it's legal to beat the slave so long as they don't die? I mean I'm glad we agree, but WTF, why are you holding this up as ome sort of moral victory for Jesus? The verse, we agree, says if you beat your slave to death, you'll get punished. It definitely doesn't say "don't beat your slave at all," which means it's legal to do so, regardless. It's biblically legal to beat the slave, what exactly is the slave protected FROM? I have to say man, in a sea of weird and senseless arguments you've made, this is among the weirdest. If you want to protect a slave from being beaten, say don't beat your slave. Not "don't beat them so badly they don't die within 24 - 48 hours.

Created:

5 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@RoderickSpode

No. I mean in the context of the verse you cited, in the eyes of god (this is his word, right? it's the bible?), not today in Israel, not in a muslim nation as Islam didn't exist, but in the eyes of whoever wrote the verse you're saying was intended to specify the punishment for the master. Under that verse, at that time, was it LEGAL for a slave owner / indentured servitude employer to do as I said. According to the verse you're saying is there to protect the servant, is it legal for that person, the owner, to slap a fifteen year old kitchen servant, knock her to the ground, and kick her in the ribs? Under that verse, is the master subject to ANY remonstration either from Jesus or from the legal system in place according to that law?

Created:

5 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@PGA2.0

If it were, I'd be there, wouldn't I? The answer is no.

Created:

5 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@PGA2.0

Take it t o the politics forum. Wrong topic.

Created:

5 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@PGA2.0

Scientifically, an eternal universe is not well supported.

Right, but it's still better supported than invisible supernatural universe creating agent who shows up in a book from 2000 years ago and no where else. How? (A) The universe is observable and (b) the laws of conservation are tested and proven.

The rest of your post looks to me like questions I've already answered with "I don't know" and / or "the answers make no difference to how I live my life, at all." I'll go on not raping, not stealing and not murdering, somehow, while still being pretty sure there's no god watching me and keeping track of how often I jerk off. It's ironic that you mock my worldview because it doesn't 'make sense' of how life started, which it doesn't even attempt to do, as that information is totally immaterial to my life, but you think "magical invisible being did all of this" is somehow sensible. In any case, whatever it is that's keeping you from descending into a murder rampage, keep on believing it. Your testimony, I've heard it, it is completely banal.

How many posts until you go full Qanon?

Created:

5 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@PGA2.0

Once again, you never answered my question. Do you believe self-creation is possible? Do you believe a non-existent thing can create itself? Do you believe that nothing can become something? If so, please demonstrate how.

I don't know is the answer to these. Though I struggle to figure out a 'non'existent' something. You either occupy space and time or you don't, that's what existence is.

f you say the universe is eternal I ask how you get to the present?

This and the whole paragraph it leads into is beyond obtuse. The current presentation of the cosmos, including time, started at the big bang, per a preponderance of evidence. The matter that it's made of might be eternal, for all I know. The laws of conservation would sort of point in this direction.

If the universe comes in and out of existence, what causes such a phenomenon?

Don't know. I'm saying it's possible based on the laws of conservation and gravity. Some scholars agree, some haven't made up their minds, some disagree. In any case, I DON't CARE enough about this to do independent research on it, nor am I qualified to do so. I read the books I'm intrigued by.

The universe is indifferent to your existence or the existence of anything else. IT DOES NOT MATTER.

Agree! To the universe my existence is less than immaterial. It only matters to me. I guess that makes me inconsistent with the universe, but that changes literally nothing, anywhere. Now my turn for a question you've skipped three times: if Jesus were proven not to have existed, and the lack of a supernatural deity were confirmed beyond question, would your first reaction be to go find someone to murder? A rape victim? A store to rob? I bet no. Why not though? There's no universal source of judgement! No moral center! Why not just pillage your way around town since there isn't a heaven to go to or a god to get mad about it?

. If there is no God, why is your subjective view any BETTER than the next person's subjective view?

Whichever causes less human suffering is better. Pretty simple. Keep bringing up Hitler though, I mean (a) god created him, (b) god planned for him to exterminate 6M jews (c) god made sure he was able to do it (D) he was not caught, (e) if Hitler was sincerely sorry and accepted jesus right before he died, he's going to be your cohabitant in heaven. Justice? The other thing you folks always miss is how big a boner you have for "mercy' and "grace," both of which are by definition departures from actual justice.

After all, he was just doing what he thought was right and good, same as you.

He was causing massive human suffering. Pretty easy to discern he's not good.

When you or your family comes against grave injustice, will you still be indifferent?

What's this have to do with morality, yours or mine? If someone is unjust toward my family, I will seek out proper and equal remediation. Not pray about it.

These disciples go to their deaths in excruciating ways because they will not renounce Him of His resurrection. For what, a lie?

So did the 9/11 hijackers. Did they do it for a lie?

The rest of this stuff is mostly your usual "claim (bible) as evidence for truth of itself." It's never been compelling, because very other religoin claims exactly the same thing. You even admit the only reason you care so much about this one is because it's the one you like most.

Created:

5 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@secularmerlin

I think that was left in draft, right next to "thou shalt not rape." It's not like you can have TWELVE commandments, so I get it, gotta make sure those graven images aren't all over the place, after all.

Created:

5 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@RoderickSpode

Sorry, poorly worded, I'll clarify:

Is it against the law you CITE HERE for a slave owner, sorry, I mean "forced labor employer," to slap a 15 year old female kitchen indentured servant, push her to the ground, and kick her in the ribs a few times? She doesn't black out, she doesn't die, she isn't struck in the head. Does the reading you provide here allow for this to happen within the bounds of the law?

That should help.

Created:

5 years ago

0

Posted in:

This law was meant to prevent abuse. Somehow it's being read as an encouragement.

Maybe it should have just said "don't beat your slave" then? Sure seems like the bible is concerned about protecting one person from false sentencing, if I take your meaning, but not about preventing some poor non-hebrew non-indentured servant (were these people eligible for beating?) from taking a vicious beating because they spilled some wine or something. Let me get your opinion on something:

Is it against the law you state her for a slave owner, sorry, I mean "forced labor employer," to slap a 15 year old female kitchen indentured servant, push her to the ground, and kick her in the ribs a few times? She doesn't black out, she doesn't die, she isn't struck in the head. Does the reading you provide here allow for this to happen within the bounds of the law?

Created:

5 years ago

0

Posted in: