Atheists what is your proof?

[birch]

But like prostitution, slavery is part of humanity, that is clear. So in this light, is it right or wrong?

obtuse is your arguing premise.

what you are ignoring is this: those who enslave do not want to be enslaved themselves for obvious reasons. that's why it's pretty clear that it's morally wrong, if it wasn't then both would find enslavement acceptable.

as for hypothetical situations where people do agree to it willingly, such as with prostitution (in some cases where they are not coerced), then it's not really enslavement or considered harmful to them.

Atheists always bring up "god allow/condones slavery" therefore god is evil.
I wish to know what is actually wrong with slavery from their perspective.

the reason for this is so obvious. it's the CLAIM that there exists a GOD that is AWARE and all KNOWING and OMNISCIENT/POWERFUL as well as RESPONSIBLE for CREATION.

if one does not make the claim it's responsible, then it can't be held responsible. theists make the claim, therefore the questions follow. it's pretty simple.

everyone else just 'deals' with life as best as possible, but that does not mean they agree with the system or don't have points of disagreement or questions.

you think just because murder exists, that someone's stand is they condone murder? humans don't have that power to allow/disallow it, it's individual. A GOD THAT CLAIMS TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL OF CREATION AND IS ALL POWERFUL THAT ALLOWS IT IS IN ESSENCE CONDONING IT.

there is a difference. sheesh.

This is the problem with atheist philosophy, the goal-post are always being shifted to suit the moment.
There are no moral absolutes, but there are some exceptions to suit their ever-changing philosophical position.

wrong, again. there are no moral absolutes in the bible when murder is justified for one reason but not another.

the ten commandments say 'thou shalt not kill' but it's justified if people think god told them to or when god does it.

 

[wynn]

no, you are being inane. the reason for a conscience is the same reason you employ everyday to take care of yourself and your safety to avoid harm and hurt. you just can't or refuse to extend that to others.

lol. i can hardly imagine someone tying you up and beating the living crap out of you with your response being "to not think one's premises through to their logical conclusion; to stop reasoning at a certain intuitively determined point' when it's your ass on the line. you would be begging for mercy, but in your case you may deserve none. you hypocrite.

You're merely fired up over your fantasy of what my stance is, not about my stance.

 

[wynn]

obtuse is your arguing premise.

what you are ignoring is this: those who enslave do not want to be enslaved themselves for obvious reasons. that's why it's pretty clear that it's morally wrong, if it wasn't then both would find enslavement acceptable.

as for hypothetical situations where people do agree to it willingly, such as with prostitution (in some cases where they are not coerced), then it's not really enslavement or considered harmful to them.



the reason for this is so obvious. it's the CLAIM that there exists a GOD that is AWARE and all KNOWING and OMNISCIENT/POWERFUL as well as RESPONSIBLE for CREATION.

if one does not make the claim it's responsible, then it can't be held responsible. theists make the claim, therefore the questions follow. it's pretty simple.

everyone else just 'deals' with life as best as possible, but that does not mean they agree with the system or don't have points of disagreement or questions.

you think just because murder exists, that someone's stand is they condone murder? humans don't have that power to allow/disallow it, it's individual. A GOD THAT CLAIMS TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL OF CREATION AND IS ALL POWERFUL THAT ALLOWS IT IS IN ESSENCE CONDONING IT.

there is a difference. sheesh.


wrong, again. there are no moral absolutes in the bible when murder is justified for one reason but not another.

the ten commandments say 'thou shalt not kill' but it's justified if people think god told them to or when god does it.

You seem to think that the world as we usually know it is all that is relevant to or about God, creation, and us.

 

[wynn]

This is the problem with atheist philosophy, the goal-post are always being shifted to suit the moment.
There are no moral absolutes, but there are some exceptions to suit their ever-changing philosophical position.

Perhaps we are giving them too much credit.

Or perhaps we ourselves are being proud, not giving credit where credit is due!

 

[birch]

You seem to think that the world as we usually know it is all that is relevant to or about God, creation, and us.

and you seem to not be able to think or refuse to.

that's pretty convenient to be hypocritical when you work to save your ass everyday in myriads of ways, eh?

look who's talking about pot/kettle.

You're merely fired up over your fantasy of what my stance is, not about my stance.

your stance is evident by and how you form your questions as well as your comments. if you didn't want people to make conclusions based on them, then you should have stated something else.

see how that works?

 

[wynn]

It would simply be incomplete to think that the world as we usually know it is all that is relevant to or about God, creation, and us, given that in all general definitions of God, there is a reference to something greater than "the world as we usually know it" (namely a reference to that which is before, after or beyond "the world as we usually know it").

 

[Jan Ardena]

Perhaps we are giving them too much credit.

Or perhaps we ourselves are being proud, not giving credit where credit is due!

Either way there is something fundamentally dodgy about their philosophy.

jan.

 

[spidergoat]

This is the problem with atheist philosophy, the goal-post are always being shifted to suit the moment.
There are no moral absolutes, but there are some exceptions to suit their ever-changing philosophical position.

jan.

The moment evolves. That is why during the enlightenment period of our history, our ideas about individual freedom and liberty changed the very fabric of society. If you want to be stuck in bronze age values, that's fine, but most of us have moved on.

 

[birch]

It would simply be incomplete to think that the world as we usually know it is all that is relevant to or about God, creation, and us, given that in all general definitions of God, there is a reference to something greater than "the world as we usually know it" (namely a reference to that which is before, after or beyond "the world as we usually know it").

and no one is doing that. that's your 'fantasy'.

what you don't consider or omitting is that "your" life is important to you as an individual as anyone else, yet you make the accusation that others are not looking at the bigger picture.

somehow slavery is not that big a deal when it's not happening to you, simply because you are not the one who is suffering from it and you have the nerve to accuse others of being too small-minded. lmao

The moment evolves. That is why during the enlightenment period of our history, our ideas about individual freedom and liberty changed the very fabric of society. If you want to be stuck in bronze age values, that's fine, but most of us have moved on.

oh please.. theists and their religions are as dodgy as they come. for cripes sake, their religious texts constantly contradicts itself or is hypocritical.

 

[spidergoat]

But it's natural right?
Somewhere in our evolutionary past we must have developed this propensity. Right?
How can it be WRONG or right, for that matter?
The strong dominating the weak, better for the long term survival of civiliasation, no?
Survival of the fittest, natural selection, and so on..


jan.

Our culture is not determined by our genes. Some basic behaviors are, but one of them isn't to enslave others. Survival of the fittest isn't always a matter of dominating over others. A matriarchal pattern of mutual cooperation can be the best solution to competition for resources.

 

[wynn]

It would simply be incomplete to think that the world as we usually know it is all that is relevant to or about God, creation, and us, given that in all general definitions of God, there is a reference to something greater than "the world as we usually know it" (namely a reference to that which is before, after or beyond "the world as we usually know it").

and no one is doing that. that's your 'fantasy'.

Earlier:

You seem to think that the world as we usually know it is all that is relevant to or about God, creation, and us.

and you seem to not be able to think or refuse to.

 

[wynn]

Our culture is not determined by our genes. Some basic behaviors are, but one of them isn't to enslave others. Survival of the fittest isn't always a matter of dominating over others. A matriarchal pattern of mutual cooperation can be the best solution to competition for resources.

So your argument is something like "Slavery is wrong because it does not lead to the overall well-being of the whole species." -?

 

[Jan Ardena]

birch,

obtuse is your arguing premise.

A baseless observation.

what you are ignoring is this: those who enslave do not want to be enslaved themselves for obvious reasons. that's why it's pretty clear that it's morally wrong, if it wasn't then both would find enslavement acceptable.

Do lion cubs want to be eaten by the new lion on the block?
Is it wrong that they get eaten?
Everytime I see a documentary on lions i always feel sorry for the helpless cubs and lionesses. But the lion is merely acting according to its nature.
So my question to you is this.
Does our not wanting to be enslaved make slavery, a seemingly natural thing, wrong?

as for hypothetical situations where people do agree to it willingly, such as with prostitution (in some cases where they are not coerced), then it's not really enslavement or considered harmful to them.

So if it doesn't harm them it's ok?
So if slaves aren't harmed it's ok?

the reason for this is so obvious. it's the CLAIM that there exists a GOD that is AWARE and all KNOWING and OMNISCIENT/POWERFUL as well as RESPONSIBLE for CREATION.

So?
How is God evil for telling a small part of society at a specific time in history, how to treat their slaves? Bearing in mind that keeping slaves is a natural thing.

if one does not make the claim it's responsible, then it can't be held responsible. theists make the claim, therefore the questions follow. it's pretty simple.

Then why don't they accept that slavery is a part of human nature?

you think just because murder exists, that someone's stand is they condone murder?

From an atheist perspective why is murder wrong?
What if the murder is percieved as being an act for the greater good, is it still wrong?

humans don't have that power to allow/disallow it, it's individual. A GOD THAT CLAIMS TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL OF CREATION AND IS ALL POWERFUL THAT ALLOWS IT IS IN ESSENCE CONDONING IT.

But God allows nature to take it's course. Right?
Slavery is a part of nature, unless you can show otherwise.
So why is it wrong?
Not why YOU think it's wrong.

wrong, again. there are no moral absolutes in the bible when murder is justified for one reason but not another.

"Murder" is the act of one human killing another, deliberately and not in self-defense or with any other extenuating circumstance recognized by law.
But yet the wholesale slaughter of animals purely for the pleasure of tounge is
accepted. From an atheist perspective what is the difference between murder, and slaughterhouse killing?

the ten commandments say 'thou shalt not kill' but it's justified if people think god told them to or when god does it.

By whom?

jan.

 

[birch]

So your argument is something like "Slavery is wrong because it does not lead to the overall well-being of the whole species." -?

again, you refuse to answer what you would do, feel or think if you were enslaved.

you conveniently omit and separate yourself from these considerations.

how about slavery is wrong because it hurts others? how about we do things conciously or unconsciousy to hurt others but that does not make it right ethically or morally?

has that ever crossed your mind?

 

[birch]

birch,




A baseless observation.




Do lion cubs want to be eaten by the new lion on the block?
Is it wrong that they get eaten?
Everytime I see a documentary on lions i always feel sorry for the helpless cubs and lionesses. But the lion is merely acting according to its nature.
So my question to you is this.
Does our not wanting to be enslaved make slavery, a seemingly natural thing, wrong?




So if it doesn't harm them it's ok?
So if slaves aren't harmed it's ok?



So?
How is God evil for telling a small part of society at a specific time in history, how to treat their slaves? Bearing in mind that keeping slaves is a natural thing.




Then why don't they accept that slavery is a part of human nature?





From an atheist perspective why is murder wrong?
What if the murder is percieved as being an act for the greater good, is it still wrong?





But God allows nature to take it's course. Right?
Slavery is a part of nature, unless you can show otherwise.
So why is it wrong?
Not why YOU think it's wrong.





"Murder" is the act of one human killing another, deliberately and not in self-defense or with any other extenuating circumstance recognized by law.
But yet the wholesale slaughter of animals purely for the pleasure of tounge is
accepted. From an atheist perspective what is the difference between murder, and slaughterhouse killing?



By whom?

jan.

you don't realize you have no basis for arguing my points. i already explained that i think it's wrong to hurt others and the recognition of that cause and effect.

as for absolute morality, that would be based on one's interpretation. what i notice is all life is trying to survive and they all want to preserve themselves.

again, you are assuming that everyone agrees with everything that occurs in nature when they are not theist.

what i find interesting is why you are so concerned about comparing or 'equalizing' your religious beliefs to what atheists think about the world or nature.

frankly, just because the bible says something is okay, doesn't mean i or anyone else will necessarily agree with it anymore than a rape or murder takes place.

you are confused. you must realize that atheists, just like theists are all people and have different values and interpretations about what life is or what it all means as well as interpeting laws of nature or universe in a moral context. this means that some will view slaughterhouse killing or killing of animals as morally wrong and some are vegetarians just as some are not. is that something you didn't realize? lol.

what the major difference with religion is that theists claim the bible as the word of god, so that is why you will be criticized for your beliefs or questioned on a moral basis in that context.

you don't necessarily have to have religion to form moral or have moral values and they all differ. if you don't want your religion/god to be criticized for your moral beliefs, then don't claim that they aren't hypocritical or contradictory which causes the whole issue in the first place.

your whole premise is absurd. the 'accepting it as part of human nature' is irrevelant but you don't see that. it's like saying, death is inevitable so why eat? drowning in a pool will certainly result in death so why swim? why fight disease?

it's the principle that all life wants to preserve itself which is very evident. it's like saying to an enslaved person that they should just accept it as part of nature when their nature is telling them to fight and get free. you are the one making unnatural points, actually. sure, things will happen but that doesn't mean in principle that victims are somehow unimportant or want to be enslaved just because they have less power at the moment. it's so obvious that if you care about your life and don't want to be enslaved, why is it hard to understand that others don't either? and if they did enslave you, you would fight back and try to get free.

 

[gmilam]

It appears that by "conscience", several people here mean 'to not think one's premises through to their logical conclusions; to stop reasoning at a certain intuitively determined point'.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conscience
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscience

Do you not have one?

 

[Jan Ardena]

birch,

you don't realize you have no basis for arguing my points. i already explained that i think it's wrong to hurt others and the recognition of that cause and effect.

You seem to think that it is about you and your moral outlook.

as for absolute morality, that would be based on one's interpretation. what i notice is all life is trying to survive and they all want to preserve themselves.

again, you are assuming that everyone agrees with everything that occurs in nature when they are not theist.

I've made no assumption. I want to know from an "atheist perspective".

what i find interesting is why you are so concerned about comparing or 'equalizing' your religious beliefs to what atheists think about the world or nature.

I'm not going to keep repeating myself.

you are confused. you must realize that atheists, just like theists are all people and have different values and interpretations about what life is or what it all means as well as interpeting laws of nature or universe in a moral context. this means that some will view slaughterhouse killing or killing of animals as morally wrong and some are vegetarians just as some are not. is that something you didn't realize? lol.

You're not listening are you?
I'm interested in the atheist perspective, not the individual perspective.
Can you give me an objective reason why slavery is wrong/right or not?
It's a really simple request.

what the major difference with religion is that theists claim the bible as the word of god, so that is why you will be criticized for your beliefs or questioned on a moral basis in that context.

But why bring up slavery, when it is clearly a natural thing.

you don't necessarily have to have religion to form moral or have moral values and they all differ. if you don't want your religion/god to be criticized for your moral beliefs, then don't claim that they aren't hypocritical or contradictory which causes the whole issue in the first place.

On this instant I have taken the argument to the criticizers.
I don't believe God is hypocritical, and as slavery is a subject used to prove this point, i'm asking why slavery is wrong. But it seems atheists are afraid to back up their arguments. Hardly surprising.

your whole premise is absurd. the 'accepting it as part of human nature' is irrevelant but you don't see that. it's like saying, death is inevitable so why eat? drowning in a pool will certainly result in death so why swim? why fight disease?

No.
Atheists say God is evil for allowing slavery, saying that He condones it.
So I'm asking why is slavery wrong from an atheist perspective.

jan.]

 

[birch]

birch,





You seem to think that it is about you and your moral outlook.



I've made no assumption. I want to know from an "atheist perspective".





I'm not going to keep repeating myself.




You're not listening are you?
I'm interested in the atheist perspective, not the individual perspective.
Can you give me an objective reason why slavery is wrong/right or not?
It's a really simple request.





But why bring up slavery, when it is clearly a natural thing.





On this instant I have taken the argument to the criticizers.
I don't believe God is hypocritical, and as slavery is a subject used to prove this point, i'm asking why slavery is wrong. But it seems atheists are afraid to back up their arguments. Hardly surprising.





No.
Atheists say God is evil for allowing slavery, saying that He condones it.
So I'm asking why is slavery wrong from an atheist perspective.

jan.]

you are being hardheaded. i do not think it's all about me and my outlook. i already explained that when it comes to morals, all atheists are different. this is very different than technically explaining how things work as in science or observing cause and effect in nature.

do you not get the difference?

why is slavery wrong from an atheist perspective? did you know that some atheists have no problem with slavery? have you been in a coma?

i have read plenty of posts from atheists, even on this forum, who have no problem with slavery (of others) or anything that many might consider immoral.

Can you give me an objective reason why slavery is wrong/right or not?

hahaha! you are basically saying that unless there is a concrete knock-on-wood proof or reason for something, then there is no justification. the bottomline is, you are equating ethics to just what can or cannot be done, which is inane and misses the point. it's like saying there is no objective reason for us to take care of ourselves or even live. your 'objectiveness' misses context and is quite unrealistic but YOU think it's being more realistic. it is dismissive of the reality of pain and damage causing others in issues of enslavement and other forms of oppression because it's not 'objective' enough a reason to you (because their existence or pain is not enough reason to you) but if god says so then it's an objective reason. the irony is that your daily existence is an example of hypocrisy as you ask why it's wrong. it would be wrong to you if you were enslaved, even if you may not label it 'wrong' but you would find it disagreeable and fight it. you can't reason with people who are unwilling to care. if one does not think it's wrong to hurt others, then to them it's not morally wrong of course. but it's always wrong when it happens to them.

like there is no objective reason for emotions, thoughts, spirituality, belief in god or religion.

genius, give me an objective reason even for your thoughts.

 

[Kapyong]

Gday,

jpappl,
As an athiest, why do believe slavery is wrong?
jan.

jan - as a Christian - why did so many Christians support slavery ?

And why can't you spell atheist right?


K.

 

[Kapyong]

Gday,

Is it not a part of our evolution, to enslave those who are weak?

Nope.

Slavery is in fact part of our Christian history.
Christians supported slavery, with the Bible as evidence.


K.