Atheists what is your proof?

[birch]

Gday,


Calling slavery "wrong" is subjective description, and I don't doubt that the majority of people hold that opinion.
But why is it ACTUALLY wrong? Atheists, by claiming God is evil because He condones/allows it, imply that slavery is actually wrong.
All I am asking is why is it wrong.


If slavery is a natural part of humanity, then is slavery itself wrong.
That being the case then God doesn't have to allow/condone it anymore than He doesn't have to condone eating and drinking. By regulating the desire of those particular peoples who view some humans as sub-human

Atheists always talk about things in evolutionary terms. One only has to watch natural world documentary to understand this. Why all of a sudden, for something so prominent in the human psyche, do atheists resort to subjective reasoning when asked about slavery? Where is the evolutionary explanation?

jan.

your post has something to do with lower iq of christians. it must be.

it's already been explained that observing what is and acknowledging what is, does not equate to agreeing with it in a moral context!

a news reporter that covers a bombing and gathers all facts and details does not mean that news reporter actually agrees with it or condones it!

are you that dense??! this is the point that has been made over and over again.

you keep thinking that atheists all have some uniform code of morals and that's not even realistic and asking atheists what their morals are. they are not followers of a certain religion so there is nothing to go by to answer those questions as it would be an INDIVIDUAL MATTER. do you not get that??

also, one can agree that evolution exists/works/occurs and is real BUT on a personal and conceptual level, that doesn't mean all ATHEISTS actually think it's great that life lives off of life and killing occurs and disease happens etc. scientists just are like frigging reporters as well as trying to work the world to our advantage as much as possible. that's it.

that has nothing to do with whether i, you, them actually likes it or dislikes it!! jesus christ! Some of them think it's great and have no problem with how nature works and others may find it cruel. but no matter what our personal opinion is of the world and universe we find ourselves, it's what we have to deal with as best as possible!

you keep asking what is RIGHT OR WRONG. those conclusions are only based on your own moral values as it's individual, not on whether something exists or happens. i can explain to you why the male lion killed the cub but that doesn't mean that i actually agree with it on some personal and absolute moral principle. acknowledging what the laws of nature are does not mean that one doesn't have the capacity to think at times or with certain aspects of nature 'you know that's fucked up'. obviously, you don't have the capacity to do both or even comprehend it. i can acknowledge that something exists and admit i don't like it very much. you absurdly think that admitting something happens or exists equates to liking it! acknowledging the existence of something as well as evolution does not mean that one necessarily agrees with it (i'm having to repeat myself to you), likes it, or thinks it's moral when their morals may contradict what actually goes on. you seem unable to understand this finer point of distinction. it's as if one acknowledges the existence of something, to you it's a total agreement on a moral level as well.

we all have to deal with the world as it is because we have little choice. but on a conceptual level and what we really think about it as in our opinions, that's different for everybody. that's why there is philosophy etc. you think that acknowledging and explaining how slavery works in a technical and factual sense equates to agreeing with it on a personal and moral sense.

it's also already been explained to you why the god/religion aspect is hypothetically responsible if it's a creator. it's unbelievable you still don't get that point. many grade school children could.

you are unable to have a conceptual view or opinion of life. it's beyond your radar for strange reason. for some freak reason, you are unable to acknowledge the existence of anything and reject, dislike or disagree with it's existence. again, everyone can acknowledge the existence of pickles (they actually do exist) but that doesn't mean everyone likes it just because it exists. this is why you have been unable to understand the answers already stated.

but yes, from a strictly non-moral standpoint or without those considerations, slavery is not right or wrong. i don't know why you couldn't have figured out something so painfully simple to begin with. the game you are playing is that nothing is right or wrong without moral considerations or if they are ignored. heh

 

[wynn]

Gday,


Calling slavery "wrong" is subjective description, and I don't doubt that the majority of people hold that opinion.
But why is it ACTUALLY wrong? Atheists, by claiming God is evil because He condones/allows it, imply that slavery is actually wrong.
All I am asking is why is it wrong.


If slavery is a natural part of humanity, then is slavery itself wrong.
That being the case then God doesn't have to allow/condone it anymore than He doesn't have to condone eating and drinking. By regulating the desire of those particular peoples who view some humans as sub-human

Atheists always talk about things in evolutionary terms. One only has to watch natural world documentary to understand this. Why all of a sudden, for something so prominent in the human psyche, do atheists resort to subjective reasoning when asked about slavery? Where is the evolutionary explanation?

Exactly.

 

[wynn]

it's amazing that you are unable to have a conceptual view or opinion of life. it's even beyond your understanding or radar. this is why you have been unable to understand the answers already stated.

All your camp has provided has been either circular reasoning, mere subjective opinion, or answers that just open up new issues for justification.

 

[Ophiolite]

Why all of a sudden, for something so prominent in the human psyche, do atheists resort to subjective reasoning when asked about slavery? Where is the evolutionary explanation?

Listen very carefully, I shall say this only once.

Cooperation is arguably as important as competition as a component of evolutionary mechanisms. It is certainly right up there in the same order of magnitude. In humans cooperation has enabled the development of the civilisation we enjoy today. One way in which evolution has fostered that cooperation is to create a moral sense within individuals that stems in part from empathy for the condition of others.

The Golden Rule emerges as a neat executive summary of the range of behaviours and instinctual tendencies that evolution has developed to promote cooperation. It is on that basis that slavery is wrong. It is not the result of subjective thinking. It is the objective observation that we are hardwired to want to cooeparate and it is a further objective observation that it bloody well works, so lets climb on the bandwagon and work at it consciously as well.

Clear?

 

[wynn]

Either way there is something fundamentally dodgy about their philosophy.

I find it both fascinating and bewildering!

Most of it looks like straight from Schopenhauer's Art of being right.

 

[lightgigantic]

Jan please do come over to my place. I will be glad for you to be my slave. You will enjoy lots of hard work, cheap food, and my control over what you say, who you befriend, and the religion you may follow. As my slave you will get but rudimentary medical treatment and most likely die soon after your working days are over. I will only beat you if you dont follow the rules..

sounds like capitalism in an industrial society

 

[birch]

All your camp has provided has been either circular reasoning, mere subjective opinion, or answers that just open up new issues for justification.

and your points are so arbitrary and pseudo-intellectual (like the one above) that a grade school kid would trump you.

let me explain why you don't even realize what building you are in: we are discussing issues of "right and wrong" as in a moral context, not whether something actually exists or takes place. the latter is not up to question and it's not being denied. it is unbelievable how elementary this is but you and jan ardena have yet to comprehend or grasp the difference.

there is no way that anyone can help someone so dense. i'm amazed at how dense you are actually.

I find it both fascinating and bewildering!

Most of it looks like straight from Schopenhauer's Art of being right.

you find it fascinating and bewildering?

you really don't understand the difference between acknowledging that something actually exists such as evolution or even slavery or the stars when you look up at night to moral interpretation? you really think they are the same?

if i acknowledge that my car exists, that's somehow equates to morality too?

if you observe a murder, does acknowledging it takes place mean automatically that one agrees with it in a moral sense? is that what you think has to be an automatic? so you are basically saying one has to? rofl

you and jan ardena are on a religious/philosophy forum and you want to break everything down to just equating morals to what exists?

 

[lightgigantic]

and your points are so arbitrary and pseudo-intellectual (like the one above) that a grade school kid would trump you.

let me explain why you don't even realize what building you are in: we are discussing issues of "right and wrong" as in a moral context, not whether something actually exists or takes place. the latter is not up to question and it's not being denied. it is unbelievable how elementary this is but you and jan ardena have yet to comprehend or grasp the difference.

there is no way that anyone can help someone so dense. i'm amazed at how dense you are actually.

you're the one who opens by discussing how journalism is like observation without opinion ....
:shrug:

 

[birch]

you're the one who opens by discussing how journalism is like observation without opinion ....
:shrug:

un-believable. the point is, if someone observes and reports facts does not mean they are agreeing with those facts in the context of personal agreement, whether they like/dislike or whether they agree with it in a moral sense. it just means they are acknowledgeing it's existence.

one can witness that predators prey in nature but that doesn't mean that everyone necessarily has to or will agree with it on a moral level. some may find it distasteful and think it's unfortunate or think nature is immoral even if that is how it is. it all depends on one's individual morals. jan ardena doesn't understand why someone would think something is wrong (morally) if they acknowledge that it exists and is a part of nature. i don't know why but some people can actually observe something or even a whole system and disagree with it and think 'you know, a lot of this is shitty but we have to deal with it, even if i don't agree with it'. it is possible to think that or have such opinions (sarcasm).

how much more simpler does it have to be explained? acknowledging something happens or exists does not equate to agreement.

what you, signal and jan ardena don't understand is if they are just trying to get acknowledgement for the existence of something, this is not the forum to do it. no one is disputing that something exists or doesn't exist. it's about moral values attributed to what takes place.

they are dishonest in rejecting the reasons (pain and suffering) for those moral values so, even technically, they are wrong and out of context in this forum and there was no reason for them to ask in the first place. they want to say it all doesn't matter because if nothing matters, then there is no right and wrong. why i say they are dishonest, is i know that there life matters to them.

 

[gmilam]

Gday,


Calling slavery "wrong" is subjective description, and I don't doubt that the majority of people hold that opinion.
But why is it ACTUALLY wrong? Atheists, by claiming God is evil because He condones/allows it, imply that slavery is actually wrong.
All I am asking is why is it wrong.


If slavery is a natural part of humanity, then is slavery itself wrong.
That being the case then God doesn't have to allow/condone it anymore than He doesn't have to condone eating and drinking. By regulating the desire of those particular peoples who view some humans as sub-human

Atheists always talk about things in evolutionary terms. One only has to watch natural world documentary to understand this. Why all of a sudden, for something so prominent in the human psyche, do atheists resort to subjective reasoning when asked about slavery? Where is the evolutionary explanation?

jan.

Maybe it's because atheists realize thetre is no sky daddy handing out the rules, so we must think for ourselves. A lot of people here seem to have reached the same subjective conclusion. If you don't want it done to you, then don't do it to anybody else. Is that really that hard to understand?

 

[wynn]

what you, signal and jan ardena

Awww.

 

[wynn]

Maybe it's because atheists realize thetre is no sky daddy handing out the rules, so we must think for ourselves. A lot of people here seem to have reached the same subjective conclusion. If you don't want it done to you, then don't do it to anybody else. Is that really that hard to understand?

A clear case of the end of philosophy.

 

[lightgigantic]

un-believable. the point is, if someone observes and reports facts does not mean they are agreeing with those facts in the context of personal agreement, whether they like/dislike or whether they agree with it in a moral sense. it just means they are acknowledgeing it's existence.

regardless of their personal agenda, the fact is that reporting observation does come with a POV. This becomes painfully obvious the further one moves away from hard science (and even then, its easy enough to find a few examples that have slipped into hard science).
As it relates to this thread however, its a popular myth of atheists to assert that their ideology is on par with hard science (IOW it comes with no packaged values etc that shape a POV) and its glaringly duplicitous of you to try and declare that a mere world view without god somehow renders moral reasoning on the (de)merits of slavery wildly asunder to the four points of the compass.

one can witness that predators prey in nature but that doesn't mean that everyone necessarily has to or will agree with it on a moral level. some may find it distasteful and think it's unfortunate or think nature is immoral even if that is how it is. it all depends on one's individual morals. jan ardena doesn't understand why someone would think something is wrong (morally) if they acknowledge that it exists and is a part of nature. i don't know why but some people can actually observe something or even a whole system and disagree with it and think 'you know, a lot of this is shitty but we have to deal with it, even if i don't agree with it'. it is possible to think that or have such opinions (sarcasm).

This doesn't explain why a world that exhibits slavery as part of survival of the fittest (or industrial capitalism or whatever) is not necessarily immoral while a god that provides some sort of framework for the use of slavery is

how much more simpler does it have to be explained? acknowledging something happens or exists does not equate to agreement.

yet a god that acknowledges slavery happens is?

what you, signal and jan ardena don't understand is if they are just trying to get acknowledgement for the existence of something, this is not the forum to do it. no one is disputing that something exists or doesn't exist. it's about moral values attributed to what takes place.

the problem is that you launch back to the default position that atheism doesn't have the substance to render a moral view of slavery (being the ideological-less ideology, the perfect companion to hard science yada yada) :shrug: .

they are dishonest in rejecting the reasons (pain and suffering) for those moral values so, even technically, they are wrong and out of context in this forum and there was no reason for them to ask in the first place. they want to say it all doesn't matter because if nothing matters, then there is no right and wrong. why i say they are dishonest, is i know that there life matters to them.

I've read this a few times and it seems to be more like a rant as opposed to addressing any previously raised issues

 

[birch]

regardless of their personal agenda, the fact is that reporting observation does come with a POV. This becomes painfully obvious the further one moves away from hard science (and even then, its easy enough to find a few examples that have slipped into hard science).
As it relates to this thread however, its a popular myth of atheists to assert that their ideology is on par with hard science (IOW it comes with no packaged values etc that shape a POV) and its glaringly duplicitous of you to try and declare that a mere world view without god somehow renders moral reasoning on the (de)merits of slavery wildly asunder to the four points of the compass.


This doesn't explain why a world that exhibits slavery as part of survival of the fittest (or industrial capitalism or whatever) is not necessarily immoral while a god that provides some sort of framework for the use of slavery is


yet a god that acknowledges slavery happens is?


the problem is that you launch back to the default position that atheism doesn't have the substance to render a moral view of slavery (being the ideological-less ideology, the perfect companion to hard science yada yada) :shrug: .



I've read this a few times and it seems to be more like a rant as opposed to addressing any previously raised issues

IF PEOPLE WOULD GET THEIR HEAD OUT OF THEIR ASS AND you keep missing the basic point. everyone's moral values do not necessarily correlate to the laws of nature. it's already been explained again in the previous post, for cripes sake. there is this belief or assumption that an atheist must correlate their moral values along with evolution because they agree it exists. some actually do but not all of them. for instance, some have no problem with slavery just like some theists because they view that as natural (as it occurs) but some don't subscribe to those moral values. some people want to murder and just because some people want to kill and it's acknowledged that is indeed a reality does not correlate to meaning that someone else agrees with it or wants to as well. just because human trafficking even occurs today as well as child slavery (this is all predation), doesn't mean that on a fundamental and moral level every atheist agrees with it just because we know that is the universe and world we find ourselves in. cripes sake, is that hard to understand?

as for as "some" atheists as well as theists moral values do correspond to how nature works as in predator/prey. you and a lot of others on this thread seem to assume that if an atheist (for instance) said they condone rape or murder or slavery etc, that somehow they would not get disagreement from other atheists simply because they are atheist. of course, they would. absolute stupidity to think that morality is totally an atheist vs theism issue.

again, you are assuming that all atheists have the same moral compass.


PAY ATTENTION: you as well as jan ardena, think it's an issue of evolution (which comprises predation) which is acknowledged as existing by atheists to theists condoning slavery because it is a natural part of nature. so the conclusion is that it's morally not wrong (because it is a part of nature). i think that's a degenerate way of justifying morality but that is up to you and others. again, why can't you distinguish the difference between what is acknowledged as an existing system on a purely factual level to worshipping, embracing or agreeing with it like religionists/theists do with their god and religion?

again, the difference still is that acknowledging that predation exists (part of nature) does not mean condoning and agreeing with it. as for religion/god, every religionist follows and worships thier god/religion. i've never heard or it's rare that a theist or religionist would state they believe in god and admit that the natural world for what it is as well as acknowledging the creator and rejecting or criticizing it (as in they think god is immoral or disagree with how it created it).

again, that is the difference. you think condoning means acknowledgement of existence of something that is not in our control. with a belief in creator that is a different context (ideologically) since it is responsible if it claims to be the creator or if religionists or theists claim it is the creator.

bottomline is, if you don't want the label of anything being immoral because it happens or exists in nature, then just boldly state so and don't be such a dishonest wussy about it. just state if someone believes that slavery is not wrong or whatever if it's what they believe and back it up as it's part of nature, predator/prey. no one can disagree with you on a purely factual basis as in it can exist and it does happen. they can only disagree with you on a personal level but that's it.

but trying to get atheists involved to justify this is really low just because they explain how evolution works.

 

[lightgigantic]

IF PEOPLE WOULD GET THEIR HEAD OUT OF THEIR ASS AND you keep missing the basic point. everyone's moral values do not necessarily correlate to the laws of nature. it's already been explained again in the previous post, for cripes sake. there is this belief or assumption that an atheist must correlate their moral values along with evolution because they agree it exists. some actually do but not all of them. for instance, some have no problem with slavery just like some theists because they view that as natural (as it occurs) but some don't subscribe to those moral values. some people want to murder and just because some people want to kill and it's acknowledged that is indeed a reality does not correlate to meaning that someone else agrees with it or wants to as well. just because human trafficking even occurs today as well as child slavery (this is all predation), doesn't mean that on a fundamental and moral level every atheist agrees with it just because we know that is the universe and world we find ourselves in. cripes sake, is that hard to understand?

as for as "some" atheists as well as theists moral values do correspond to how nature works as in predator/prey. you and a lot of others on this thread seem to assume that if an atheist (for instance) said they condone rape or murder or slavery etc, that somehow they would not get disagreement from other atheists simply because they are atheist. of course, they would. absolute stupidity to think that morality is totally an atheist vs theism issue.

again, you are assuming that all atheists have the same moral compass.

lol

If you want to say that discussion of atheist moral implications of X, Y or Z are futile since it doesn't exist as a conglomerate, I think that you will find that its not possible to discuss any sort of moral implications from any sort of ideology (much less critique one)

 

[SolusCado]

SolusCado,
Yes I have, here: from post 821

I just re-read that post, and it doesn't explain how allowing equals condoning at all. Instead, you make a claim that the Bible was made up by humans, and you object to the idea that a lower-class system is a form of slavery. But nowhere in the post do you explain how two words, that clearly have different definitions, are one and the same in your mind. In any case, I don't think it is really relevant. However, I addressed the entire notion in the other thread, so there is no reason to repeat it here. Moving on...

He is an omnipotent being. Hello. He could have stopped slavery right from the get go. By allowing it he is condoning it because he has the ability to stop it or at least tell us to stop it. He didnt.
Bold is mine.

Again, addressed in the other thread... Your view of God doesn't line up with the Bible's description of God. You can object to the description, and hold the opinion that a "righteous God" wouldn't allow such things, but your objection to it doesn't make the Bible's description somehow self-contradictory.

Instead of saying. I don't know why god would not say anything about slavery being an abomination and would allow for it and thus condone it in the OT. And then question your belief.

I HAVE said that I don't KNOW why God didn't put an end to slavery in the times of the Israelites, though I did put forth some suggestions, based largely on the character of the Biblical God - namely that he doesn't care about the sufferings of the material world. Recognizing that it was allowed - hell, even if it were condoned - doesn't give me reason to question my beliefs. Frankly, you haven't even given reason for questioning the inherent moral state of slavery in the first place. The series of responses such as "do unto others" or exploitation, etc. are yet more things that we have come to recognize IN OUR CULTURE as "wrong". I maintain that ALL such things are ultimately temporal issues, restricted to the natural world, and not relevant to the Kingdom of God. I see no justification for calling any of those things "evil" - particularly if we are going to come at it from an atheist point of view. As an atheist, my sense of morality would be based entirely on what advances the human race evolutionarily. And exploitation, slavery, oppression, etc. ALL serve to do so.

You try to defend it with all sorts of nonsense including semantics games.

Not to drag this conversation into petty arguments, but you are the one that is insisting on using a word that carries more emotional weight than another. If we want to avoid semantic games, why insist on using the term condone? We can both agree that the Bible "allows" slavery. Let's move on from there and abandon the semantic games.

You're welcome and I am being geniune.

So was I. I got overly-agitated previously, and slipped out of purely rational conversation (and for that I apologize), but I was not being sarcastic when I said thank you. These conversations - even if I do feel like they often times are fairly inefficient due to what I see as fundamental misunderstandings of Christianity - provide invaluable insight into the positions of others. If I am giong to write something that convinces both sides of the aisle to abandon their useless arguments, I need to fully understand not just their arguments (which I think I already have a handle on), but also the motivations behind their arguments.

Wow. Ok so we should not question the bible.

And oh, by the way that is exactly what you are apparently doing. Not questioning it. Just reading it to interpret it to fit your theory.

How are we being arrogant in asking these questions Solus ?

The arrogance isn't in asking these questions, but thinking that your small view of the universe is wise enough to decide what is best for humanity, across the entirety of time. Just the occassional science fiction would present you with scenarios where a little bit of evil at one point in time turns out to be the best for everyone. Think of the traditional "would you kill Hitler before he came to power" questions. Many people, with the benefit of hindsight, are quick to say yes, but if you were presented today with an innocent man, not knowing what abominations he would be responsible for in the future, who are you to decide his life? Likewise, to suggest that you know what God "should do" is enormously naive, not to mention arrogant. Of course, you aren't really being arrogant because you don't really believe God is real. So you aren't suggesting that this is what God should do, but rather stating that you don't understand how a "righteous" God would allow (or even condone) such things. To that I again refer you to my other posts in the other thread regarding the concerns of God - which AREN'T physical suffering or oppression.

I am not claiming to know god or what he should have done. I am questioning what is written in the texts of the bible which apparently were inspired by god.

Are you suggesting that is off limits ?

No, I am stating that none of us have the scope of knowledge that one would assume God has necessary to question these particular things. If you wanted to point out contradictions in the Bible, you would need to find verses where God states one thing in one verse and something different in another. To date, you have provided no such evidence.

Indeed, it should have happened all at once. But anyway, yes, slavery was a cultural value in biblical times, but don't we know now that it's wrong? Why is the morality outlined in the bible such an obvious product of the times? Shouldn't God transcend such things? I maintain that the bible doesn't reveal anything that people didn't already know at the time, so why is it divine? I find it troublesome that religious people would practice their religion like this: revelation is a matter of interpretation, but that revelation also tells people that it is a matter of life and death to get it right. So all sorts of people are going around believing and acting on the notion that eternal torture awaits those that do not interpret God's will the same way they do. And that will is of such a nature and origin that it precludes rational belief. I don't find anything divine about it.

(All of this was addressed in the other thread.)

This is exactly what I am trying to get Solus to recognize. That god should have known and revealed such.

He appears to be unwilling to ask himself that question or he doesn't understand what is being asked.

He is intelligent so I go with the former.

See above, and the other things I have said. It isn't that I am unwilling to ask myself anything - it is that I recognize just how much I DON'T know - including all ends to all things. I can imagine a ton of reasons why God didn't forbid slavery on my own, and I don't have the benefit of 'infinite' knowledge. As an example, look at what happened when the US tried to abolish slavery - it resulted in a civil war that could have very easily wiped the US out (weakening all of us to the point of England, France, or Spain being able to come in and take over). If the same thing would have happened to the fledgling nation of Israel, we might have lost God's word entirely, and if (as I have posited numerous times), there was genetic relevance to the Israelites, it may have resulted in the elimination of Christ, and/or our salvation, for all time. Your insistence that you know what God should have done, given your lack of 'infinite' knowledge, resultingly comes across as arrogant, naive, or both.

Clearly? I hear it preached to apply to the bible all the time. Also there you start already, what part of the words I and the lord do you not understand? That is moses saying only he writes gods laws, nobody else adds to it. Hence leviticus is dead lol.

Pointing out to me something I already know - that millions of Christians are misled every day by preconceptions and biases - doesn't really make any point. You are capable of thinking for yourself, right? So if you don't think it is clear, explain to me why - based on your own thoughts and interpretations, not the fact that others teach it that way.

Oh? Give us some biblical examples where a characters name is replaced by its meaning. You can't just willy nilly make stuff up as u go.

This very statement indicates that you know little of linguistics. Even as early as the Middle Ages, people's last names were simply a reflection of their jobs. In ancient times, names were the words that meant something. Lucifer for example was a word that mean "Angel of Light". Because "Lucifer" was the "angel of light", he was called "Lucifer" - the word that meant "Angel of Light".


As for the other comments everyone has made over the last few days, I haven't been able to keep up, and there was a lot of repitition. I BELIEVE I have addressed the concepts, if not the precise statements, that have been made. If anyone feels they made a point I have not responded to, please repeat it and I will address it.

 

[Kapyong]

Gday,

Gday,
Calling slavery "wrong" is subjective description, and I don't doubt that the majority of people hold that opinion.

Wrong.
Slavery is wrong. Period.
Everyone but you ackowledges that.
(Welll, maybe one or 2 others here are trying to 'allow' it.)

But why is it ACTUALLY wrong?

People answer you over and over...
You IGNORE it every time!

Atheists, by claiming God is evil because He condones/allows it, imply that slavery is actually wrong.

Wrong.
Theists and Atheists all agree that slavery is wrong.
Everyone but YOU understands why slavery is wrong.

All I am asking is why is it wrong.

And you ignore the answers - over and over.
The fact is - you REFUSE to even LISTEN to why slavery is wrong.

Apparently because YOU support slavery.

If slavery is a natural part of humanity, then is slavery itself wrong.

Wow!

You actually believe that ANYTHING natural is right !?
I'm sorry, but I think this claim is totally insane.

Let's compare :

If war is a natural part of humanity, then is war itself wrong?

If murder is a natural part of humanity, then is murder itself wrong?

If rape is a natural part of humanity, then is rape itself wrong?

If pedophilia is a natural part of humanity, then is pedophilia itself wrong?

If the Nazis were a natural part of humanity, then is Nazism itself wrong?


This is complete an utter nonsense, jan.

You are supporting EVERY EVIL that EVR happened!

Atheists always talk about things in evolutionary terms.

Wrong.

Informed Theists and Atheists both talk in evolutionary tersm - most theists support evolution, most mainstream churches support evolution.

Why all of a sudden,

What?
What 'sudden' ?
What happened suddenly?
What does this even MEAN, jan ?

for something so prominent in the human psyche, do atheists resort to subjective reasoning when asked about slavery?

What subjective reasoning?
What are you TALKING about?

Everyone knows slavery is wrong for clear objective reasons.

Clear objective reasons that YOU refuse to even READ !

Where is the evolutionary explanation?

WTF?

jan - evolution is about BIOLOGY.

You have this bizarre idea that evolution must explain EVERYTHING!

Sadly, you don't know anything about evolution at all.


K.

 

[birch]

I see no justification for calling any of those things "evil" - particularly if we are going to come at it from an atheist point of view. As an atheist, my sense of morality would be based entirely on what advances the human race evolutionarily. And exploitation, slavery, oppression, etc. ALL serve to do so.

given you have no sense of right or wrong, has nothing to do with atheism.

that is what you are assuming. you are justifying the absence of morality based on nature.

what is so strange (it's awesomely perplexing) is that if one were in a position of exploitation, slavery, or oppression. the view would not be that it's what is best by those who are in that position, especially if they are suffering a great deal. that's what makes your view that it is not "evil" quite interesting.

i suppose it would be more palatable to call it 'disagreeable' or 'unpleasant' to you, to not insult god's creation or "system." it's quite interesting you are so in love with it considering, the bible even talks of heaven and hell. the bible even states to not worry about treasure on earth because it can be stolen or ravaged. this is a frigging hint it ain't so great here, sherlock. and you have the nerve to insinuate that everyone else is blind to not see how great it all is and dismissive of the gross amount of suffering and evil as well as dead soldiers along the way for his great glory or marvel of nature. wow, that's very similar to an enamored dictator bent on their agenda or objective. in short, a user and abuser. but, it's true that many atheists hold the same opinion, but it's referred as nature or laws of nature whereas theists like you refer to it as god.

according to your views, there really is no reason to have any laws or organizations designed to protect people or even animals. so according to you, there is no need to stop drug trafficking, human trafficking, murders, assaults, domestic violence, rapes, child abuse, animal cruelty, disease, hunger, war, etc. it all just is not as important as the bigger picture which is what god wants or what his overall design is. it does not matter that we are the pawn in this big game. we should not be naive (or is that you?) and never let it cross our mind that it's conceptually not the best in our opinion.

hmm, okay. why didn't you just state this before. why are coming out with this now?

if nothing is considered evil to you, then why do you believe in a bible that states there is evil and cites what it considers evil? you even stated that god created evil. you know what? don't even bother answering that, because you will just come up with more excuses.

you as well as others are trying to absolve your religious views from criticism by dropping everything to a default position of nature/evolution.

seems deceptive to not admit this in the first place.

that said, make no mistake, just because one is an atheist, does not mean they don't have moral values or personally agree with the laws of nature.

I DON'T know - including all ends to all things. I can imagine a ton of reasons why God didn't forbid slavery on my own

it's amazing that none of you theists on this board are getting that this is an issue but not the major issue.

the reason why the question is posed is from atheists who view slavery as wrong (as in conceptually and morally they do not agree with it). as in, even if there is no god or a god, they STILL do not agree with it, even if it does occur in nature.

pay attention: to those who say that god created this 'system' whereby slavery is a natural part, that is what the issue is. why would god create such a system? no need to answer that because we can't.

no matter, even if it did, it still does not automatically guarantee that atheists would agree with it (though some will, of course).

you, like many theists, seem to assume that what is will automatically be approved of just because of it's existence and if god were to be proved tomorrow, that somehow it would automatically garner approval of what god is or does. that's a mistake and a presumption. it would just be an acknowledgement about it's power and what it has done and what it can do. nothing more or less, anything else on a personal level of opinion would be individual.

 

[SolusCado]

given you have no sense of right or wrong, has nothing to do with atheism.

I DO have a sense of right and wrong, as defined by Christ.

that is what you are assuming. you are justifying the absence of morality based on nature.

I really have no idea what you are saying with this sentence.

what is so strange (it's awesomely perplexing) is that if one were in a position of exploitation, slavery, or oppression. the view would not be that it's what is best by those who are in that position, especially if they are suffering a great deal. that's what makes your view that it is not "evil" quite interesting.

Absent an objective universal morality, the very concept of good and evil loses meaning. It becomes a question of what best serves some common goal. The goal must be identified before things can be considered good or evil. Actually, that applies to Christianity as well - the goal being to be in alignment with God's will. (I would argue that this is essentially the same as Buddhism, where the goal is to be in alignment with the universe. Since God's Will IS the universe, Christianity is essentially the same as Buddhism.)

i suppose it would be more palatable to call it 'disagreeable' or 'unpleasant' to you, to not insult god's creation or "system."

Your sarcasm is making it hard to follow your point.

it's quite interesting you are so in love with it considering, the bible even talks of heaven and hell.

Not sure that I have any idea what you are saying here. Why does talk of a heaven and hell (which is debatable btw) relevant to my following of the Bible? (Incidentally, I don't actually "follow" the Bible. I follow God, and I follow Christ. It is Christ that I love. And God. The Bible serves to define who God is, and the NT teaches us about who Christ was.)

the bible even states to not worry about treasure on earth because it can be stolen or ravaged. this is a frigging hint it ain't so great here, sherlock.

I never said that it was so great here, so I really don't understand the source of your condescension. What on earth are you talking about?

and you have the nerve to insinuate that everyone else is blind to not see how great it all is and dismissive of the gross amount of suffering and evil as well as dead soldiers along the way for his great glory or marvel of nature.

I never said (or insinuated) any such thing. When I talk of the beauty of God's creation, I am looking at the entirety of reality. The beauty of math and physics. The beauty of a system which follows rules that can be so simple and yet result in the amazing complexities of stars, galaxies, life, molecules, atomic structures, evolution, etc. Do you deny the beauty of such things?

wow, that's very similar to an enamored dictator bent on their agenda or objective. in short, a user and abuser. but, it's true that many atheists hold the same opinion, but it's referred as nature or laws of nature whereas theists like you refer to it as god.

I am fully aware of the difference in recognizing nature as "just" nature, and as recognizing it as a creation, but again - I have no idea where your venomous comments are coming from. What exactly is similar to an enamored dictator bent on their agenda, and what exactly is the dictator enamored with?

according to your views, there really is no reason to have any laws or organizations designed to protect people or even animals. so according to you, there is no need to stop drug trafficking, human trafficking, murders, assaults, domestic violence, rapes, child abuse, animal cruelty, disease, hunger, war, etc. it all just is not as important as the bigger picture which is what god wants or what his overall design is.

Except that most (if not all) of those are in direct contradiction to the teachings of Christ. So, I have no idea what you think my views are...

it does not matter that we are the pawn in this big game. we should not be naive (or is that you?) and never let it cross our mind that it's conceptually not the best in our opinion.

Again, no idea what you are talking about.

hmm, okay. why didn't you just state this before. why are coming out with this now?

Why didn't I state what before?

if nothing is considered evil to you, then why do you believe in a bible that states there is evil and cites what it considers evil? you even stated that god created evil. you know what? don't even bother answering that, because you will just come up with more excuses.

I have NO IDEA how you interpreted what I've written, because I never said that nothing is evil.

you as well as others are trying to absolve your religious views from criticism by dropping everything to a default position of nature/evolution.

How so?

seems deceptive to not admit this in the first place.

Admit what?

that said, make no mistake, just because one is an atheist, does not mean they don't have moral values or personally agree with the laws of nature.

I never suggested any such thing.

it's amazing that none of you theists on this board are getting that this is an issue but not the major issue.

What is "this"?

the reason why the question is posed is from atheists who view slavery as wrong (as in conceptually and morally they do not agree with it). as in, even if there is no god or a god, they STILL do not agree with it, even if it does occur in nature.

Ok, so there are atheists who view slavery as "wrong" (whatever that may mean) but none of you have explained WHY. (I'm not saying it's right, mind you.) I think the point my fellow theists have been trying to push goes back to my statement above. "Right" and "wrong" are really just ways of describing that something is conducive to a goal or not. Atheists who go through life arbitrarily deciding things are right and wrong based on their own personal feelings apparently do not realize how much those feelings are based on the cultural values that surround them, which invalidates them as any kind of objective stance of morality. It becomes a personal sense of morality, and thus useless. On the other hand, if there IS a thought process, a line of logic, that concludes slavery (as an example) is "wrong", then please provide it. I don't see how that is possible without first defining the target goal, and there doesn't seem to even be any consideration of one.

pay attention: to those who say that god created this 'system' whereby slavery is a natural part, that is what the issue is. why would god create such a system? no need to answer that because we can't.

You clearly haven't given it much thought if you can't think of any reasons. Off the top of my head, perhaps...
1. Slavery provides an economic purpose to people who may otherwise not contribute to the development of a civilization.
2. Slavery provides the manpower necessary to achieve public works that a government may not otherwise be able to fund.
3. Slavery provides an opportunity for a group of people to "rise up" and become more than they might otherwise.
4. Slavery may serve to hinder the growth of a group of people that would otherwise be detrimental to the peace of surrounding areas, or to the survival of a region.

And that's just off the top of my head. I could go on and on. When one removes emotion from the equation, and instead applies only logic, the "apparent abomination" of such things dissipates quickly.

However, to be excruciatingly clear - I do not approve of slavery, and Christ teaches us to love everyone. Slavery (in the forms we commonly recognize at least) is not by any stretch of the imagination an acceptable application of Christianity.

you, like many theists, seem to assume that what is will automatically be approved of just because of it's existence and if god were to be proved tomorrow, that somehow it would automatically garner approval of what god is or does. that's a mistake and a presumption. it would just be an acknowledgement about it's power and what it has done and what it can do. nothing more or less, anything else on a personal level of opinion would be individual.

I don't see what justification you have for saying I seem to assume that, because I don't.

Given the high degree of retorts you have to things I have never said, I can only assume that you are responding emotionally to something that others have said to you. Doing so interferes with the thread, and if it is at all possible I would encourage you to try to relax and just "stick with the facts", as Sergeant Joe Friday would say.

 

[phlogistician]

no we have not. we are all slaves to greed...money, money, money.

Wow, what a generalisation. Christians aren't supposed to be slaves to money. They are supposed to be poor, and happy in their poverty, emulating Jesus. He did have something to say on the matter. Odd though, how I have never met a christian that followed his advice on the subject.