Atheists what is your proof?

[wynn]

True, we were created by the universe.

You think this is what those who had printed "In God we trust" on their money had in mind when they were composing various constitution documents?

 

[wynn]

let's sum up this slavery issue.
/.../
instructor: what if i think you are inferior? so it was neither right or wrong when it's about someone else but it's not neither wrong or right but suddenly "wrong" when it applies to you?

students: uh...um...well...ah...yes.

The thing is, Birch, that nobody is arguing that. This is simply the twist that your camp has put on the objections that some of us were making.

 

[SolusCado]

there have been legitimate reasons posted on this thread repeatedly why slavery would be considered wrong/immoral but you are not paying attention to them or refusing to.

as for the rest of your reponses, it's all bs. you claim your morality is based on christ and don't condone slavery and yet you deviously try to condone/allow slavery even on a basis of principle by remaining suspiciously noncommital. your arguments are extremely hypocritical.

furthermore, you have repeatedly pleaded on many threads and called for fairness toward christians and how they are treated on this forum from others which is trivial in comparison yet when it comes to an issue even more serious you dont take it seriously and basically try to condone it by pluggint that it's nothing to do with morality.

Since you're not getting it, let me be crystal clear.
I DO NOT CONDONE SLAVERY.

Now, moving on. What makes slavery immoral? Beyond subjective feelings (which seems to be the only reason given so far). Or is that the only reason?

 

[jpappl]

SolusCado,

“ Originally Posted by jpappl
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.

Right you don't know and haven't given it any thought. Why is that ?

Because you know it shouldn't be there. As to your assertion that slavery, oppression is of value to advance us that is nonsense, nicely summarized by Ophiolite here.

"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? "

In fact many of our current problems are because we are not cooperating and working together toward a common goal.

Why is that ?

One of the problems is the conflict of the religious which we are all, whether we like it or not are caught up in.

I also realize that you are trying to be part of the solution within your religion and all I can say is good luck with that.

Slavery is wrong. We know that now. We did not know it then. It doesn't matter whether it is subjective or not. We understand it is, so unless you want to claim otherwise then we should address the question.

Which is why is it allowed by the god of the bible ?

I have your answer.

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.

Let's.

“ Originally Posted by jpappl
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.

Yes, I would agree. Which is my purpose here. I am asking you to scrutinize your positions and beliefs to see if there is something that doesn't fit.

You are the only one who can do that in the end. If you are unwilling to challenge yourself then it doesn't matter.

The discussion of god is a mute point, the discussion of religion is not. Which is why we want you to continually define this god of yours.

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 still confused by the statement that god is not concerned with our physical suffering. Doesn't god command war and death, would this not include physical suffering.

Is this not also the god of the bible ?

“ Originally Posted by jpappl
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.

I am pointing it out. Slavery. You don't have an answer to this and should question it further.

Can you not think of any others to question ?

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.

Really. God wouldn't know that the righteous path was to fight against slavery. Again, it appears that we have outgrown the biblical god.

If we mere humans can see a more righteous way then god then it isn't worth my time. He can do with me what he wants I guess.

And again the arrogance statement. I am saying and have been saying that god should have known and thus instructed us that it was wrong. I am not claiming infinite knowledge, you are claiming your god has infinite knowledge.

Think about it.

 

[wynn]

The question I am trying to get ANY atheist on this board to answer is - if you don't accept a code of ethics defined from some third party - by what doctrine, or by what standards, do you consider slavery immoral?

It's not merely about accepting a code of ethics from a third party, but accepting a code of ethics from a superior party - ie. someone who can actually sanction the transgressions of the code.

 

[SolusCado]

The thing is, Birch, that nobody is arguing that. This is simply the twist that your camp has put on the objections that some of us were making.

I'm starting to think Birch just wants to argue for the helluva it.

 

[wynn]

I'm starting to think Birch just wants to argue for the helluva it.

I think his/her intelligence is clouded by his/her emotions. So seems to be many others'.

 

[birch]

Since you're not getting it, let me be crystal clear.
I DO NOT CONDONE SLAVERY.

Now, moving on. What makes slavery immoral? Beyond subjective feelings (which seems to be the only reason given so far). Or is that the only reason?

you sure do leave yourself a lot of comfortable room by playing both sides of the fence, dontcha? it has been answered why many times. slavery violates others, is inhumane and uses them for unfair gain. those damaging and ill consequences are not just subjective but real which you continously ignore.

why do you not condone slavery? you have not given any reasons except because you follow christ.

yet, you want to argue that slavery is just based on subjective feelings so not really about morality.

that way, one can employ slavery when it suits them and not when it doesn't.

and you have the nerve to say i'm the one who would be waffling.

you're a good example of why many find religionists like you corrupt.

 

[gmilam]

You think this is what those who had printed "In God we trust" on their money had in mind when they were composing various constitution documents?

Don't know what they had in mind. But seeing as how "In God We Trust" did not appear on US money until circa The Civil War, it's fairly irrelevant.

But the Declaration of Independance (NOT the Constitution) says the "Laws of Nature and of nature's God". (Don't forget, most of the founding fathers were deists.)

So, yes, I'd have to say that is what the founding fathers had in mind.

 

[Emil]

Both sides are capable of being "militant".

Did you forget?
Inquisition, missionaries, holy wars, jihad ... etc.

 

[spidergoat]

You think this is what those who had printed "In God we trust" on their money had in mind when they were composing various constitution documents?

Money is not a binding document. In those days, one couldn't get away with admitting they didn't believe in God.

 

[birch]

I think his/her intelligence is clouded by his/her emotions. So seems to be many others'.

the difference that your extremely feeble mind can't figure out is that some people are just more honest. slavery is real with real consequences and not an issue that one can wax on about so clinically and detachedly such as yourself, unless you ignore that.

 

[Kapyong]

Gday,

Nothing is immoral without an agreed upon doctrine of morality, which has yet to be defined.

Nearly all of us have already agreed that slavery is immoral.
It is one of the most well-defined evil on the whole planet.

But
for some reason the THEISTS insist it is not.

Believers preaching that slavery is OK !

Shameful
Disgusting.


K.

 

[Kapyong]

Gday,

Not at all - I am simply pressing you to provide those legitimate reasons.

Reasons have been given on THIS thread many many many times.

Why do the theists IGNORE them?

Then ask AGAIN for them?
Then IGNORE them again?
Then ask AGAIN for them?
Then IGNORE them again?
Then ask AGAIN for them?
Then IGNORE them again?
...


Why?


K.

 

[SolusCado]

SolusCado,
Right you don't know and haven't given it any thought. Why is that ?

Because I'm not that concerned with it. The same reason I haven't given thought to what color hair Christ may have had. It doesn't matter to me.

Because you know it shouldn't be there. As to your assertion that slavery, oppression is of value to advance us that is nonsense, nicely summarized by Ophiolite here.

Because I know what shouldn't be where? Incidentally, I didn't assert that slavery/oppression IS of value to advance us, but rather I provided a number of hypothetical reasons to the hypothetical question of why would God not have "spoken against it" at the time of Levitical law. He did eventually speak out against it (in a form) through Christ, so the question you are really grappling with is why didn't God just hand everything out at once, and the answer to that is because that isn't the way God operates. He gives us what we need when we need it.

"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.

All true, though to be fair, slavery played a role in that as well.

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? "

That's fine, though the golden rule originated in the Bible... Sooo, you're really just agreeing with us theists on that one.

In fact many of our current problems are because we are not cooperating and working together toward a common goal.

Agreed.

Why is that ?

One of the problems is the conflict of the religious which we are all, whether we like it or not are caught up in.

I also realize that you are trying to be part of the solution within your religion and all I can say is good luck with that.

I'm glad you made that statement so that I didn't have to. I agree that the conflict between beliefs that cannot be proven one way or another is a useless expense of our thoughts and energies, and I think that getting people to be tolerant of each other's beliefs is a more effective approach than trying to wipe out other's beliefs.

Slavery is wrong. We know that now. We did not know it then. It doesn't matter whether it is subjective or not. We understand it is, so unless you want to claim otherwise then we should address the question.

I agree that slavery is wrong, though I do not agree that subjectivity is irrelevant (in the bigger scheme of things). However, since we are all agreed that slavery is wrong, you are correct that it is irrelevant to the conversation at hand.

Which is why is it allowed by the god of the bible ?

I have your answer.

No, you have YOUR answer. Mine is that (again) God gives us what we need when we need it. As I stated before, Christ's teachings (which I also believe to be of divine inspiration) DO stand in opposition to slavery, so you cannot say that it is allowed by the God of the Bible. You can only say that it WAS allowed at one time.

Yes, I would agree. Which is my purpose here. I am asking you to scrutinize your positions and beliefs to see if there is something that doesn't fit.

Thank you, but at times it DOES seem that you are scrutinizing what you BELIEVE my positions are based on conversations with others rather than what I have said, but ... that isn't terribly relevant either. Moving on...

You are the only one who can do that in the end. If you are unwilling to challenge yourself then it doesn't matter.

It is through challenging myself and the beliefs with which I have been raised that I have come to the positions I have.

I am still confused by the statement that god is not concerned with our physical suffering. Doesn't god command war and death, would this not include physical suffering.

Is this not also the god of the bible ?

If by commanding war, you are referring to the initial settling of the "Holy Land, I would point out that this is an example of my statement. God wanted to provide a place for "His People" to prosper and grow, and the physical sufferings of those who were conquered wasn't terribly relevant. After all, we have all "sinned and come short of the glory of God," so we all deserve death anyway. Any life we have is a gift from God.

If by commanding death you are referring to sacrifices, it is actually taught now in Jewish synagogues (some at least), and backed up by evolutionary psychology (recent theories at least), that the purpose of sacrifices was to provide a means for one to absolve themselves of guilt. Back then (and even today for many), if people did something that was wrong, they knew it and would be riddled with guilt. Guilt and shame do have a negative effect on our health (again, this is modern medicine speaking, not theological belief), and sacrificing something that had value to the tribes basically just made them feel better. It absolved their guilt, and THAT would have been what God was concerned about - not whether or not something died.

If those were NOT the things to which you were referring when you noted that God commanded war and death, I will need you to be more specific for me to comment further.

I am pointing it out. Slavery. You don't have an answer to this and should question it further.

Again, all you have pointed out is that God did not forbid slavery at one point in time. That he later did doesn't mean he contradicted himself. That is why the point regarding allowing equalling condoning was so relevant.

Can you not think of any others to question ?

I have never come across any contradictions, only misunderstandings, incomplete quotes, and flawed logic that led people to THINK they had uncovered a contradiction.

Really. God wouldn't know that the righteous path was to fight against slavery. Again, it appears that we have outgrown the biblical god.

I never suggested anything close to the notion that God wouldn't know, but rather that God had reason to not tell us at that particular point in time.

If we mere humans can see a more righteous way then god then it isn't worth my time. He can do with me what he wants I guess.

Frankly, this too is in alignment with my position (and basically the same thing you will learn in modern Christian Theology) - which is to say that it wasn't until the coming of Christ that "we mere humans " COULD "see a more righteous way". IOW, whether you realize it or not, it is quite possibly God talking to you that makes you so certain of things such as "slavery is wrong". (Of course, there is cultural reference that comes into play as well, so it was more likely God talking to the first people who fought to end slavery than you - but perhaps not. I am not God and don't know what he says to whom.)

And again the arrogance statement. I am saying and have been saying that god should have known and thus instructed us that it was wrong. I am not claiming infinite knowledge, you are claiming your god has infinite knowledge.

Think about it.

And I am saying that God not telling us something at a specific point in time does not justify you saying "God should have known and thus instructed us". Of course God would have known - but it may not have been the best time to tell us. Kind of how you don't teach a five year old about sex.

 

[birch]

Gday,



Nearly all of us have already agreed that slavery is immoral.
It is one of the most well-defined evil on the whole planet.

But
for some reason the THEISTS insist it is not.

Believers preaching that slavery is OK !

Shameful
Disgusting.


K.

they want to leave room to use or allow slavery. it's pretty clear that is what the jist of it is including condoning the slavery of the past and as stated in the bible etc.

as for here and at this time, they state they do not "personally" condone slavery probably because it's not popular or not desired at this time.

 

[SolusCado]

Gday,



Reasons have been given on THIS thread many many many times.

Why do the theists IGNORE them?

Then ask AGAIN for them?
Then IGNORE them again?
Then ask AGAIN for them?
Then IGNORE them again?
Then ask AGAIN for them?
Then IGNORE them again?
...


Why?


K.

Just point me to a post number if you like. As I've said over and over again, I haven't seen a post yet that addresses these points/questions. Some people don't quote me when they post something, and their statements aren't exactly well-formed, so perhaps someone thought they were answering and I just couldn't tell.

 

[SolusCado]

Gday,



Nearly all of us have already agreed that slavery is immoral.
It is one of the most well-defined evil on the whole planet.

But
for some reason the THEISTS insist it is not.

Believers preaching that slavery is OK !

Shameful
Disgusting.


K.

You CLEARLY don't understand the points I have been making. Have you been reading my posts, and they aren't clear to you, or are you just not reading the entire post?

 

[SolusCado]

I think his/her intelligence is clouded by his/her emotions. So seems to be many others'.

I won't disagree with that.

 

[Kapyong]

Gday,

Just point me to a post number if you like.

A few posts up, birch said :

"slavery violates others, is inhumane and uses them for unfair gain."

A reasonable short answer.
Many other posts have given similar reasons.
But you ignore them and insists no answers have been given.
Why?


K.