Atheists what is your proof?

[Jan Ardena]

birch,

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!

:wallbang:

I'm not interested in morality regarding this issue.
Why is it so hard to understand? :wallbang:

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!

Show me where I said that atheists must agree with slavery because it appears natural?

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

Apparently you must be fracking dense, as I've iterated again and again, that i'm not interested in personal moral outlooks. Go back and read.

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??

:bawl:

so, 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.

BUT THEY!!....explain it in evolutionary terms. Don't they?

you keep asking what is RIGHT OR WRONG. those conclusions are only based on your own moral values as it's individual,

Then why use "slavery" as an argument to say God is evil?
Why use words like "condone" and "allow"?
Why don't atheists give an evolutionary explanation for slavery, then we can see if the terms "right/wrong" or "evil" is applicable?

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.

Have you actually read my posts?

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.

Based on the premise that "slavery" is ACTUALLY AND OBJECTIVELY evil. An evil condoned and allowed by a supposed loving god. A claim has been made, and I'm asking for some clarification.

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.

Get your head out of your arse and actually read what I'm writing.
It might help if you highlight the portion of the post you are answering.

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

I'm not the one using it bolster an argument.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Ophiolite,

Listen very carefully, I shall say this only once.

*to be perceived in a comedy french accent*

Okay.

In humans cooperation has enabled the development of the civilisation we enjoy today.

So has slavery (not that i personally condone it).

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.

"moral sense", "empathy", aren't these subjective feelings, based on any number of situations and scenarios?
Where does the act of enslaving another come into it?
It appears that slavery is more effective than "moral sense" and "empathy" in modern society.
Of course we would have to hammer out what defines slavery.

The Golden Rule emerges as a neat executive summary of the range of behaviours and instinctual tendencies that evolution has developed to promote cooperation.

Ok..

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?

Do you think the enslavement of people require cooperation, moral sense, and empathy?

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

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?

Obviously it's not hard to understand, and if you were half as smart as you claim to be, you wouldn't need to ask that question.

So basically you're not interested in the actuality of slavery, as in, why does it exist at all.
You're just glad it exists so you can use it to justify your atheism.

jan.

 

[gmilam]

Then why use "slavery" as an argument to say God is evil?
Why use words like "condone" and "allow"?
Why don't atheists give an evolutionary explanation for slavery, then we can see if the terms "right/wrong" or "evil" is applicable?

Wow, we actually agree! I think it's pointless when people try to argue God is evil. If god does not exist, then god isn't anything... Man is the problem.

Have you actually read my posts?

Yes, they are typically an incoherent rambling mess.

 

[gmilam]

Obviously it's not hard to understand, and if you were half as smart as you claim to be, you wouldn't need to ask that question.

So basically you're not interested in the actuality of slavery, as in, why does it exist at all.
You're just glad it exists so you can use it to justify your atheism.

jan.

Whoops, and we were starting to get along. You're now showing your asshole side again.

PS - When did I claim to be smart?

 

[birch]

Wow, we actually agree! I think it's pointless when people try to argue God is evil. If god does not exist, then god isn't anything... Man is the problem.

it's amazing that this point is unrecognized. but they DO claim god exists and god is responsible for creation, which follows the accusation that god is "evil", if one holds the opinion that slavery is also evil. simple logic.

as for evolution, observance is not agreement. again, simple logic. and again, atheists all have different moral values. for instance, many atheists consider animal cruelty wrong, though they can clearly observe that it occurs. again, it's painfully simple to understand the different contexts which follow the questions raised as well as the arguments. an atheist will argue with another atheist on moral issues as well as a theist, if their morals clash. again, simple logic.

faulty theist logic: god is not immoral because even evolution comprises what can be defined as immoral.

faulty atheist logic: evolution is not immoral because that is the way it is done.

neither point has anything to do with morals or ethics. it's merely an observance of what is.

theist: why are atheists accusing god of being immoral or wrong when they "believe" in evolution?

this is the most common and crucial point of misunderstanding among theists and some atheists. it's not a "belief" in the sense theists "agree" with god's system. it's not a "belief" at all. it's just an observance, which some do and don't agree with on a fundamental principle even if they know what those priniciples are and can even present them as facts. for instance, one can visit another country and observe a corrupt system, one can also be a native in a system and observe it is corrupt but still have to work with and live in it, exercising their power in whatever way they can. again, some think the system is good and some will think it could have been or should be different.

no one is denying or claiming what evolution is or comprises of. it's the moral implications which will differ among individuals.

 

[gmilam]

it's amazing that this point is unrecognized. but they DO claim god exists and god is responsible for creation, which follows the accusation that god is "evil", if one holds the opinion that slavery is also evil. simple logic.

as for evolution, observance is not agreement. again, simple logic. and again, atheists all have different moral values. for instance, many atheists consider animal cruelty wrong, though they can clearly observe that it occurs. again, it's painfully simple to understand the different contexts which follow the questions raised as well as the arguments. an atheist will argue with another atheist on moral issues as well as a theist, if their morals clash. again, simple logic.

faulty theist logic: god is not immoral because even evolution comprises what can be defined as immoral.

faulty atheist logic: evolution is not immoral because that is the way it is done.

neither point has anything to do with morals or ethics. it's merely an observance of what is.

no one is denying or claiming what evolution is or comprises of. it's the moral implications which will differ among individuals.

I would go so far as to say that nature is amoral... Neither good, bad, evil or loving. Nature just is.

There is evidence of both compassion and ruthlessness in nature.

 

[birch]

I would go so far as to say that nature is amoral... Neither good, bad, evil or loving. Nature just is.

it is amoral in principle but we experience the effects because all are trying to survive and have that drive or else we suffer pain. in that context; good, bad, evil and loving do exist as a consequence. the words are 'labels' for this consequence.

 

[Kapyong]

Gday,

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

Ah, so because Christ supported slavery in the Gospel, that is why YOU support slavery ?

Are you a member of a cult that supports slavery ?

Absent an objective universal morality, the very concept of good and evil loses meaning.

What ?!
Thats EXACTLY what Christians claim to have !

Are you claiming that "good and evil" has no meaning ?
Seriously ?

It becomes a question of what best serves some common goal. The goal must be identified before things can be considered good or evil.

Riiight.
Slavery cannot be considered good or evil yet - because we have not identified a goal ?

Are you serious?

Do you REALLY believe that slavery could be OK?

Are you and jan members of a cult that supports slavery?
Do you own any slaves?

Ok, so there are atheists who view slavery as "wrong"

Wow.
Are you really claiming that all theists support slavery?

The facts are clear - everyone - theists and atheists, condemn slavery.
The only supporters are YOU and jan.

(whatever that may mean)

Wow.
You don't even KNOW what the phrase "slavery is wrong" even MEANS ?
How do you expect anyone to believe that?

but none of you have explained WHY.

Many many posters HAVE explained why over and over - but you and jan deliberately and repeatedly IGNORE the reasons !

Do you think anyone is fooled ?


K.

 

[SolusCado]

Gday,
Ah, so because Christ supported slavery in the Gospel, that is why YOU support slavery ?

Are you a member of a cult that supports slavery ?

You clearly didn't read my post. No, neither I nor Christ support or supported slavery.

What ?!
Thats EXACTLY what Christians claim to have !

Are you claiming that "good and evil" has no meaning ?
Seriously ?

I'm not sure you read my post at all. As I stated before, "Good" and "Evil" essentially boils down to something that works towards or against a goal. In a historical context, this has always been the instructions of a deity. So, acting in such a way that gets you closer to accordance with the instructions of the deity is "good" and acting in such a way that deters is "evil". Christans believe in a God, and more specifically, in Christ, to have provided those instructions. So, following them is "Good" and disobeying them is "Evil". However, if you don't have a "supreme being" dictating such instructions, the words lose meaning - unless you come up with another target goal - such as the increased evolution of man, survival of the maximum number of humans, peace among all humans, or some other goal. Once that is defined, further actions can be designated as "good" or "evil" based on how they further said goal.

Riiight.
Slavery cannot be considered good or evil yet - because we have not identified a goal ?

Are you serious?

Yes. This is a simple matter of logic and deduction. As I said in my previous post, one should be able to logically deduce something without the influence of personal feelings, as personal feelings are too subjective to be of any use in defining a shared morality within a civilization.

Do you REALLY believe that slavery could be OK?

Your question doesn't even have enough parameters to answer it. "OK" for the accomplishment of what? Equality among people? Obviously not. Quickest way to build pyramids? Probably.

Are you and jan members of a cult that supports slavery?
Do you own any slaves?

Obviously not. If these questions are serious, you should really re-read my post. If they are sarcastic, what has been said that would make you suggest such a thing?

 

[birch]

I'm not interested in morality regarding this issue.
Why is it so hard to understand?

you are the one who is refusing to acknowledge the explanations.

this isn't an issue of why slavery benefits the enslaver for obvious reasons but because all life cares for itself and slavery is disrespectful of another's life for your own. why should one give up their life for you or your personal gain? why would you have a right to use others while you would not want the same done to you? if you don't care how others feel or if you don't care to be fair to others or recognize that their lives are also important, then that's on you. to them, they will think it's wrong. if it happened to you, you would think it's wrong. that is why some people have come to understand that it's wrong and a better solution is people work together for mutual benefit. why is that hard to understand?

for example, a man can rape a baby for sexual pleasure or release which may damage or even kill it, but that doesn't mean just because one knows the cause and effect of this scenario means people will agree with it.

i will play your game for second.

i can use your line of logic devoid of moral or humane considerations. why would it be wrong? there are plenty of other babies and it was just one. even if the one suffered, the man had more power so the consequence is obvious. the man fulfilled it's objective, even if it did damage or extinguish another life. it's not wrong because the motivation was the cause and the action resulted in fulfillment of his objective. case closed.

again, why you would ask if something is wrong or right for the most banally obvious as one plus two equals three, is veering into the absurd and nonsensical.

what is your problem in understanding something so painfully simple????

again, RIGHT or WRONG in the moral context is what we are discussing here, not whether you will surely roast on a fire if i throw you in it. for me to state you won't, would be WRONG (INCORRECT). Yes, you are correct about that!

wtf? what answer are you expecting???? that slavery is not wrong because it exists? because it can be done? because it is motivated by gain? that is very obvious that one would not even need an answer, so why would you ask if it's RIGHT OR WRONG, if not in a moral context????

do you have a mental block???


YOU HAVE ALREADY BEEN ANSWERED THIS QUESTION OVER AND OVER AGAIN. WITHOUT MORAL CONSIDERATIONS, NOTHING IS CONSIDERED RIGHT OR WRONG.

wth is wrong with these people.

 

[SolusCado]

Wow.
Are you really claiming that all theists support slavery?

The facts are clear - everyone - theists and atheists, condemn slavery.
The only supporters are YOU and jan.

Again, you are clearly not reading my posts. Jan and I are trying to get SOMEONE to put forth a logical, emotionless, objective assertion as to what makes slavery "wrong". I am further insisting that one must first identify the goal towards which you are working, so that the words right and wrong have some contextual meaning.

Wow.
You don't even KNOW what the phrase "slavery is wrong" even MEANS ?
How do you expect anyone to believe that?

Right, because the goal has yet to be defined. Consider the definition for "wrong" (that which is wrong, or not in accordance with morality). Ok, not in accordance with morality. Well then, what is morality? (a doctrine or system of morals). Ok, what is a moral? (morals, principles or habits with respect to right or wrong conduct). We have now establish a circular definition. At some point (such as the doctrine or system of morals), one must identify that doctrine. For Christianity, it is easy - it is that which is taught by Christ. For others, SOMETHING must be identified as the doctrine, as the system, and THAT is what Jan and I are trying to elicity from someone. Note, no one is saying that atheists have no morals; we simply cannot proceed with the conversation until the doctrine is identified.

Many many posters HAVE explained why over and over - but you and jan deliberately and repeatedly IGNORE the reasons !

Not that I have seen. All I have seen is people's opinions, such as the simple statement "slavery is wrong", or incomplete threads, such as "slavery removes one's right of will" - which then begs the question, why is removing one's right of will "wrong". If there was indeed a post that answered the questions I have raised, please repost it so I can address it.

Do you think anyone is fooled ?

Fooled by what? I'm not even trying to make a point here. As best I can tell, this tangent was started when others were exclaiming outrage that the Old Testament didn't call for an end to slavery, to which I have repeated replied that it is likely because such things are irrelevant to God (as he is described in the Bible).

 

[SolusCado]

you are the one who is refusing to acknowledge the explanations.

this isn't an issue of why slavery benefits the enslaver for obvious reasons but because all life cares for itself and slavery is disrespectful of another's life for your own. why should one give up their life for you or your personal gain? why would you have a right to use others while you would not want the same done to you? if you don't care how others feel or if you don't care to be fair to others or recognize that their lives are also important, then that's on you. to them, they will think it's wrong. if it happened to you, you would think it's wrong. that is why some people have come to understand that it's wrong and a better solution is people work together for mutual benefit. why is that hard to understand?

the principle of this is regarded as immoral (wrong) by some atheists even if it exists.

for example, a man can rape a baby for sexual pleasure or release which may damage or even kill it, but that doesn't mean just because one knows the cause and effect of this scenario means people will agree with it.

it is obvious why someone would if the do not care at all for others.

what is your problem in understanding something so painfully simple????

again, RIGHT or WRONG in the moral context is what we are discussing here, not whether you will surely roast on a fire if i throw you in it. for me to state you won't, would be WRONG (INCORRECT).

wtf? what answer are you expecting???? that slavery is not wrong because it exists? because it can be done? because it is motivated by gain? that is very obvious that one would not even need an answer, so why would you ask if it's RIGHT OR WRONG, if not in a moral context????

do you have a mental block???


YOU HAVE ALREADY BEEN ANSWERED THIS QUESTION OVER AND OVER AGAIN. WITHOUT MORAL CONSIDERATIONS, NOTHING IS CONSIDERED RIGHT OR WRONG.

wth is wrong with these people.

I am assuming this is a response to Jan's posts, not mine - correct? (You didn't include the poster in your quote, and I don't recognize that statement as my own.)

 

[gmilam]

I believe the Declaration of Independance describes it as self-evident:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

 

[SolusCado]

I believe the Declaration of Independance describes it as self-evident:

I have argued before, and will continue to argue, that anyone who claims something is "self-evident" is someone who is at a loss to provide a logical explanation for their position. IOW, it is a cop-out.

With that said, it IS part of the US Constitution, and does indeed provide the very "common goal" I have been addressing. The U.S. Constitution is a doctrine of morals by which we might judge something to be "right" or "wrong". Of course, the U.S. Constitution had similar rules regarding how slaves were to be managed, though I believe it was eventually changed. So, we can say that slavery in the US is indeed "wrong".

What exactly is the point? It seems that we have gotten off on an unrelated tangent to the original conversation.

 

[birch]

I believe the Declaration of Independance describes it as self-evident:

if people don't want to acknowledge that other's life is important as much as their own, then anything done to "others" will not be considered wrong.

you can't make people be honest. as long as it can be done and they can get away with it, many will use that to justify it. it is technically true, it's not wrong to them since they don't care. what is so pathetic is it's not difficult to understand why it's morally wrong if they consider themselves in that position. if both consider it wrong to be enslaved, it pretty much follows that slavery is "bad" etc since it violates their right to life which all life cares for. it's a bullshit game to play cognitive dissonance and pretend it's not "wrong" objectively when there is nothing objective about slavery. if slavery was objectively "right", then the enslaver would also submit to be enslaved. we know why they wouldn't. the argument and point(trick) is as absurd and devious as this: one can tell a lie, so therefore the lie is not wrong.

it's kind of like this scenario: is the enslaved wrong for fighting back? if slavery is right, then why do the enslaved buck it or fight it when they can?

 

[SolusCado]

if people don't want to acknowledge that other's life is important as much as their own, then anything done to "others" will not be considered wrong.

you can't make people be honest. as long as it can be done and they can get away with it, many will use that to justify it. it is technically true, it's not wrong to them since they don't care. what is so pathetic is it's not difficult to understand why it's morally wrong if they consider themselves in that position.

it's kind of like this scenario: is the enslaved wrong for fighting back? if slavery is right, then why do the enslaved buck it or fight it when they can?

I don't think anyone on this thread has been arguing that slavery is "right". If ANYTHING, it may have been argued that it is amoral, but I haven't seen any posts that would indicate anyone has suggested it is indeed "right".

 

[gmilam]

I don't think anyone on this thread has been arguing that slavery is "right". If ANYTHING, it may have been argued that it is amoral, but I haven't seen any posts that would indicate anyone has suggested it is indeed "right".

Would you want to be a slave?

 

[SolusCado]

Would you want to be a slave?

No. I also wouldn't want to be poor, overweight, 5' tall, dumb, or bald. What's your point?

 

[birch]

this whole slavery is not wrong and there is no objective reason that it's wrong is not only a complete farce but dishonest. the "objective" add-on is a distraction and trick considering the enslaved are not "objects" that have no feelings or thoughts but does as the enslaver. enslavement doesn't occur in the world of ideas where there is no real consequences, that is the deception in the argument.

it's easily debunked. consider an example:

if jeffrey dahmer captured jan ardena against his will and locked him in his dungeon/basement to control, humiliate, torture, mutilate, starve, and abuse; jan ardena's feelings, thoughts and actions would betray his detached "slavery is not right or wrong" bs he's been pushing on this thread. if that were true, jan ardena would not even think of fighting back or escaping. he would agree with his enslaver or be completely neutral. jan ardena would just stay put and think to himself "what is wrong with it? can't find a reason"