Total posts: 7,093
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
I agree and yet we seem to still be in disagreement.How we approach the bible should be determined by what it says, not what other take it as.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
This is untrue.You do not believe in morality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
I would like to. It just doesn't seem that there are. There are rights that many people agree ought to be self evident and inalienable.So you believe that there are no self evident inalienable rights?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Very true but in this case the chances of asking the author directly are not good. In that case I have no choice but to make my own determinations or adopt the determinations of other humans who also have not spoken to the author. This is also the choice you are left with. Since however we were discussing whether it was biblically permissible to own slaves I was taking it as a given that we were approaching it as a source of moral pronouncements. If you feel that the bible is not meant as a moral guide or that it makes a poor one we can approach it as such.What the book is being used for might be different from the authors intent in writing the book.
states that you can own people as property that it means you can own people as property.But that is not what it says. That is what you assume it says because you are American who finds it almost impossible to think of slavery in a non old american south way.
I was actually only making comments on the contents of the book in question. If by coincidence it was also considered moral to own people as property in the American south pre civil war then that may also be a topic worth touching on but you are actually the one who brought it up not I.
This isn't the first time we've talked secmer. You have never shown a contradiction in the bible.
Only contradictions if the text is taken at face value. The bible is only contradictory if it means what it says. It is interesting however how much interpretation the passages seem to need before they can be said to agree.
I consider owning people as property to be immoral regardless of who does the owning.Our debate is not about what you consider to be immoral, but whether the bible condones slavery.
Well are we discussing the bible as a source of morality or not? I taking the text at face value cannot help but see that it would at least appear in many places to condone slavery and you mention that we cannot know the authors actual intention which is not necessarily untrue, but if that is the case then why does it matter what it says? After all we do not know the purpose of that passage. Perhaps it was meant only for entertainment purposes... like Dr. Phil.
Created:
Posted in:
In other words he may as well be talking to himself.Correct. Pointless.
That is not pointless if his goal is a conversation with himself.
By contrast I do not know how a question will be answered until you answer it. This invites conversation.No, it only invites another question from you. And if it is a never ending series of questions, no point can be reached. There is no point, other than asking another question. It is Pointless.
It is hardly my fault that answering a question often naturally leads to another querry.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
I am in fact only taking the passage at face value. I am assuming that if a passage of a book which is being used as a moral pronouncement states that you can own people as property that it means you can own people as property.You assume they are buying the person. Why?
Why would a man be punished for beating his property if he owned the slave?
Why would a person be punished for abusing a dog that they ostensibly speaking owns? The answer is that it is because it is against the law of the society in question.
If these pronouncements are contradictory to some other passages in the bible...You have never shown a contradiction.
You will notice my use of the word if. If these pronouncements are contradictory. I will thank you not to put words in my mouth.
only God can own people,
I consider owning people as property to be immoral regardless of who does the owning.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Pointless in what context? Both of us have goals which we hope to realize it is just that if his goal is to have a discussion constructing strawman arguments would not appear to be efficacious as it does not require an answer but instead provides a faulty one. In other words he may as well be talking to himself. By contrast I do not know how a question will be answered until you answer it. This invites conversation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
I'm uncertain what you mean. The socratic method (the asking of seemingly endless questions in an attempt to reach the truth about a person's beliefs if not about the actual state of reality) is an efficacious tool in discussion and strawmen are not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Then let us examine the root claim rather than the wording. The claim you are currently discussing is that abortion ought to be considered murder. This arises from including undeveloped fetuses under the prescriptive term person. Unless you are using person in a purely practical manner (to determine how many people are aboard an elevator with a limited maximum occupancy for example) what we consider a person is largely determined by our moral intuition which is of course subjective not only to the group under discussion but to the individual
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
As an example let us take a popular vegetarian sound byte (which of course will not reflect the opinions of all vegetarians) "meat is murder". This is of course not true from a legal perspective. What is really meant is the killing of animals as a food source is not justified and should be illegal. In other words meat should be considered murder which is different than saying that it is murder.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Murder is prescriptive not descriptive. If the act is not in opposition of any current legislation it is by definition not murder.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
You don't pass laws to murder others.The death penalty is federally legal in the US, where I live. This is a law that's been passed specifically to murder people, legally, and it has a very large contingent of self professing Christians supporting it. Apparently, we do make laws to murder others.
Actually most legal systems make a distinction between murder (prescriptively the unlawful killing of another human being) and justified homicide (the lawful killing of another human being) the real question in this case (and the issue most often disagreed upon) is what exactly constitutes a justified homicide.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
Let us simply remove the word slavery from the equation. What the bible prescribes in the passage you have quoted is that you can buy (non Jewish) people whom you will then own as property which can be passed down to your descendants as inheritance. There are other passages which concerning the ownership of people including the more temporary ownership of (Jewish) people, the guidelines for how to trick a (Jewish) person into being owned on a more permanent basis and guidelines on how severe a beating you are permitted to administer to the people you own.
If these pronouncements are contradictory to some other passages in the bible then we are left with an unclear picture of what the biblical stance on owning (non Jewish) people actually is at best.
Now it is up to you do you define slavery as the ownership of people as property that can be passed down to your descendants? If so then yes the bible has passages that specifically condone that. If you feel that this practice is better described by a word other than slave that is also alright but I find the practice of owning others to be immoral regardless of the label being applied to the practice.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dynasty
Let me preface this by saying that no two atheists are alike and there are even religious atheists. That said let us examine these sayings together.
Here is the list.1. If you were born in India, you would've been a Hindu!
Statistically speaking (but not universally) religion belief is determined by the group you were born into. The correct way to say this would be if you were born in India the chances of your being a hindu would be far higher and your chances of being christian would be far smaller.
2. Hitler was a Christian!
Hitlers actual internal beliefs aside he did quote and use politically many pieces of christian dogma in his efforts to conquer Europe and enact genocide. The correct way to day this would be Hitler espoused many christian ideas.
3. Bible promotes rape, slavery, and killing!
Some passages of the bible normalize condone or even command these acts. That being said the bible is often self contradictory and some passages could be interpreted as prohibitive of at least one of these acts.
4. Sky Daddy!
Language is meant only to convey an idea. I prefer to use more precise terminology such as some god(s) as it is more inclusive of the various theistic ideas I have encountered but if you understand the meaning of the designation "sky daddy" then the phrase serves its purpose. I'm not sure there is a right or wrong with this but it would be nice if a less narrow term could be used.
5. God is evil!
This of course depends on the god(s) under discussion but as atheists by definition do not believe in god this is an inaccurate way of expressing their opinion. The correct way to say this (providing it even matches with a given atheist's opinion on the subject) is the hypothetical god we are discussing would seem to commit and or condone acts that I consider immoral.
6. Religious people are less intelligent!
Intelligence is notoriously difficult to measure in a meaningful way. The more correct way of saying this is that on some tests meant to measure human intelligence theists tend to have statistically lower scores.
7. Religion is a delusion!
I'm not sure what to say about this. Religion and delusion are far from mutually exclusive but they are not the same thing. There is no correct way to say this.
8. It's writing in black and white!
I'm uncertain what you mean here. Or rather what the hypothetical atheists you are strawmanning here mean. Do you mean that the bible is clear? I do not make that claim. I find it is in fact very difficult to pin down exactly what the bible means in many instances and partly because it seems to have many different authors who had different things to say and where coming from different historical contexts.
9. Jesus was a myth!
This is a claim and so would require a burden of proof. The more correct way of saying this would be there is no evidence that Jesus was a historical figure or that many of the stories regarding his life and exploits would seem to be mythologized in much the same way we have developed mythologies regarding George Washington.
10. Christians have killed people!
I mean technically true but it is difficult to find such a diverse demographic of people for whom this is not true. Also it is unclear what this has to do with the truth value of any christian claim might be unless the claim where no christian kills anyone ever which is not a claim I hear from Christian's often.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@OntologicalSpider
I do not object to peaceful observance of the christian religion. I do not object to the peaceful observance of any religion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
What constitutes better is a qualified opinion not a quantifiable measurable fact.
Are you asking if I am of the opinion that I am better than a cow? In what regard exactly?
I am better than a cow at tool use and public speaking but worse than a cow at excreting milk.
Perhapsif you reformulate your question to be more precise I could give a more precise answer.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
This is very clearly not what the majority of theists are arguing for and is therefore very clearly an attempt at constructing a strawman argument. Any argument that you construct yourself with a purposeful flaw included will perforce be easily defeated. It is far more challenging to refute the actual arguments of your interlocutors.Perhaps we could build a 100% natural, faith healing hospital ....we could call it "The Holy Hospital of Kindness".* Instead of operating theatres we shall have prayer rooms.* Instead of professional doctors, nurses and surgeons, we'll have naturopaths, chiropractors and accupuncturists.* Instead of drugs we will have holy water.* And of course, we would need to erect a morgue that's larger than the hospital itself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
I disagree. Please define the word work for the purposes of this conversation as very few things have no utility to anyone.The topic is precise and succinct.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
No indeed. Not my rules unless I have some way of enforcing said rules or the agreement and cooperation of all involved parties. This is equally true of larger organizations like nations. The laws of any nation derive from the mandates of any governing bodies and are only as legally binding as can be enforced by said government unless all involved parties agree.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Yes the wording implies that the rights laid out are both universal and absolute but even the founding fathers had very definite ideas about whom should benefit from these rights and it wasn't necessarily all humans. The truth is I can write any rules for my clubhouse I like and I can use the most definite language possible but it is still up to those using my clubhouse to follow the rules.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
The rights set put in the constitution of the United states of America are still just popularly held opinions about what rights people ought to ge afforded. It can be amended and even ignored. We can easily declare that universal healthcare is a basic human right. Pir ability to equitably provide for that right aside.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
I still argue that all rights are merely popularly held opinions about what we are entitled to. By your preferred definition there can be no rights because as every person is an individual with their own strengths and weaknesses absolute equality (or that anything can be provided for completely equitably) seems highly unlikely and certainly does not reflect our current observable reality. Certainly if there can be no rights then there can be no right to healthcare.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dynasty
If taken literally and at face value they do not appear to match in any meaningful way. If however you mean that they are metaphorically about evolution I would ask you to provide rigorous standards for how to interpret the book accompanied by a demonstration of why every other interpretation (particularly those of young earth creationists who claim they are incompatible) is necessarily incorrect.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Seth
Evolution in no way contradicts all versions of theism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
This argument would seem to be more about what is meant by "prayer working" than about whether or not prayer works.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
How exactly are you defining a right here? As far as I know a right is merely a thing (and sometimes an ill defined or abstract thing like happiness) that enough people in a society have agreed we ought to have (a subjective opinion) that the society at large tends to afford (or try to afford or profess to try to afford) to all individuals who qualify for said right.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dynasty
If you wanted to discuss philosophical arguments for or against some god(s) why mention evolution at all? The two are completely unconnected.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Pinkfreud08
Justice means different things to different people but I would have to say that wholesale executions without due process are a hard sale, for me, as just acts.
Created:
Posted in:
Flawed arguments are no more useful in demonstrating your argument than they are to theists.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
That depends greatly what you mean when you say works. If it can calm the mind of one individual once then it cannot be said that it has never done anything that could be defined as working. This of course would depend greatly of your definition of work in this context but the placebo effect is real. Even sugar pills "work" sometimes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@OntologicalSpider
While it might change my understanding of what you are arguing if you were to rigorously define the terms everything, begins, exist and cause the first premise does seem awfully like a way of smuggling a special pleading fallacy later by claiming that despite your argument hinging on our never having observed a thing which exists which did not begin (an undemonstrated conclusion itself) that you nevertheless have special knowledge of some thing which exists which did not begin.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
What do you mean by "work"? Very few things have no utility whatever.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dynasty
Change my mind.
Is there something wrong with the one you have?
It's not an oxymoron
Correct. The fact that evolution is an observable feature of reality is more or less unconnected with the question of whether some god(s) exist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
If natural selection is the primary drive behind the diversity of species we would expect those kinds of behaviors. Natural selection has explanatory power
Natural selection is a sufficient explanation. Perhaps you misunderstand what I mean.
As for objectivity please give an example of a proven non tautological objective truth. We can go from there.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Objectivity may be beyond humans. The only truths we can be sure of are tautological truths. Tautologies are prescriptively true. It is based on language and the meaning of words which, while we must agree on them in order to communicate, are subjective by their very nature.
Each of these kinds of behaviors promotes survival of the special which is literally the only thin that natural selection rewards.Elaborate.
It is a very simple concept. Behaviors that are detrimental to species survival (even if they superficially benefit the individual) tend to be weeded out. That leaves only behaviors that aid in species survival and those which do not hinder a species survival.
Amongst such behaviors are
Those that promote species interest (sometimes manifesting as altruism/empathy).
Those that promote self interest (so long as they are not detrimental to the species) as individual survival is necessary for a viable species.
Those that are incidental but not detrimental to species or individual survival.
Those which once promoted species or individual survival but which no longer serve their purpose in an organism's current environment.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
The argument, "humans are subjective" isn't objective?
Well of it is objective then it cannot be subjective. The two are mutually exclusive.
Provide the explanations.
Each of these kinds of behaviors promotes survival of the special which is literally the only thin that natural selection rewards.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
I think we are again talking past each other. Opinions are subjective agreed?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I'm not sure it is either. However reece101 certainly seems to think that if enough people hold the same opinion it becomes objective somehow.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Yes infinite regress. Your solution to the problem would seem to be to make a case of special pleading.
My solution is to admit we do not now how the universe came into existence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
I have not changed my definition of objective. Objective has meant irrespective of human opinion since the beginning. If it does not mean that to you then kindly supply a word for that concept.
You seem to be conflating the objective fact that most people are of the subjective opinion that people should avoid killing one another with the subjective opinion itself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
By all means as 3RU7AL has suggested put forward your preferred definition if you like but altering your language will not make morality more than an opinion and no matter how many people hold an opinion it does not magically transmogrify the opinion into a fact.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
You are a hard anti-theist to every single religion other than yours and also every single sect of religion other than yours if you're truly devout.If you can't see the irony at calling that smart when you call going one further dumb, then perhaps the dumb one is closer to home.
Well stated
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dynasty
No dumber than anyone who makes claims that cannot be supported by independently verifiable evidence. Arguably less dumb than those whose claims are supernatural in nature.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
Then we agree that morality is subjective?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Let us assume for a moment that some god(s) created the universe. What then created them?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Your first cause. The kalam does not actually explain where this first cause came from. That makes the entire argument no more than a case of special pleading.
Created: