Cherry Picking... especially interested in theist views

[leroy]

I can concede those points, although I don't necessarily agree. My only issue though is what you mean by "promiscuity". I took that to mean sex outside marriage but I could be wrong...

Yes with promiscuity I am simply talking about having sex for the sake of just having sex, (an image of a rock star in a orgy comes to mind)

 

[stvdv]

Apologies

Thanks. Accepted of course.

Just to address the first part though, you CAN conpare them is the US not a part of the world? To use that argument, you'd have to explain why the US can be used as an exception for this purpose... i.e. god only applies his rules there.

I found it strange when I read this article. I always thought that Aids was spread mostly from men to men. So I was surprised to read that 80% was spread through hetero. Then I read that most Aids victims are in Afrika. So US victims are much less.

I did read elsewhere that in Afrika there is a big Aids problem because man have sex with men and also with women. So that might explain that it is spread through hetero more even than through homos. Of course there are also bi's in US, but maybe there are more bi's in Afrika. But I studied this just a little. Probably there are other factors also. But with these thoughts at least this "80% spread by heteros" makes a bit sense to me. And because the number of victims differ so much, I can understand that the outcome seemed to be opposite.

And probably if you read another article from another link, you get even more confusing numbers. But I found it interesting this discrepancy (in US mostly spread by homos and worldwide mostly spread by heteros), that's why I pointed it out.

I apologise if you didn't feel I was listening to you - I completely misunderstood where you were coming from and misunderstood your arguments.

Thanks again. Good to know it was just a misunderstanding. I had my shares of those on the forum also.

 

[Audie]

Yes with promiscuity I am simply talking about having sex for the sake of just having sex, (an image of a rock star in a orgy comes to mind)

I wonder if most societies through time have not had
pretty strict rules on what the women are allowed to do,
and which men are allowed to have sex with them

 

[leroy]

With all due respect, I think you are stereotyping Christians.

regarding my personal opinion of morality... I'm afraid you will perceive it as an artful dodge... but here it goes:

From my perspective: discussions of morality without examining the circumstances on a case by case is non-productive.

If I had to describe my version of morality, it is:

What is moral? It does no harm.

An over simplified catch-phrase at best... admittedly.

Regarding OBV: help me. I am so sorry. I just google-searched it, and it's a stock trading term?

I would be happy to discuss it [OBV] with you, but, I need a little help understanding where you're coming from. --blush--

An objective truth if something that is truth regardless of human (or non human) opinion, for example 9 x 3 = 27 this is objectively true and would be true regardless if some people disagree, even if all humanity where to say that 9x3=20 it would still be true that 9 x 3 = 27 and those who claim that 9 x 3 = 20 are simply wrong

An Objective Moral Value is just a value that is true despite human opinion, for example torturing a child for fun is objectively wrong in the same way 9 x 3 = 27 is objectively true.

The point is that if you argue that the bible promotes stuff that is morally wrong in an objective sense, then you are granting that OMV do exists, (being OMV hard to justify in my opinion)

So my question would be, is stoning gay people morally wrong in an objective sense, or it just a social contract? Is it truly and objectively wrong to stone a gay man, or is stoning a gay man just “inconvenient” for the survival of our specie and flourishing of our society?

If you say that stoning a gay man is objectively wrong I would ask you: how do you justify the existence of “objective wrong” under atheism?

If you say that stoning a gay man is just an inconvenient thing to do (a social contract) then why making a big deal if the bible promotes it? If nothing is objectively wrong, then all you have is your personal opinion, you personally believe that stoning a gay man is wrong, but others might have a different opinion and nobody would be wrong (just different opinions)

 

[Audie]

Just for my inho, if that is not objectively wrong,
then nothing is.

 

[iam1me]

Fair enough, the modern definition of slave can be softened. However, am I wrong in saying that the bible literally refers to slaves as property amd that you can beat them as long as they live for two days? Can the biblical definition of slave be softened? The answer is no. Saying 'well they were sometimes nice to their slaves' just doesnt cut it.

It's not a matter of softening the definition, it's understanding that the scope of the things that fall under the definition of slavery and servitude is much larger and more pervasive than you are letting on - including things which you find perfectly acceptable. Hence your trouble understanding that an elderly person being forced to work at McDonalds or the like is, in fact, a form of slavery. You don't see literal chains or whips - so you think that acceptable.

What makes a given version of the master-slave relationship acceptable or not is not that such a hierarchical position exists - there is really no avoiding such relationships. What matters is how the master treats his servant. What made American Slavery so evil was not the fact that they had slaves, but that the slavery was driven by hate, racism and greed. The individuals weren't seen as people, but merely 1/3 of a person. Anything could be done to them without consequence.

The scriptures say that slaves are the masters property - but qualifies that with various restrictions and rights to the slaves benefit. The master can't simply do whatever he wishes. A master could punish a slave, but not kill them or bring any serious harm to them. And, if mistreated, the slaves were free to run away. No - the OT scriptures teach to treat slaves/servants as family. This goes well beyond sometimes treating a slave nicely to a fundamentally different relationship altogether.

As for your question about conquerers in war - the local population shouldn't be taken as slaves! This is immoral, and I'm just speechless that you're having trouble grasping that.

Answer the question: what should be done with the local population? Will you kick them out and send them traveling for a new place to live - dying along the way? Will you immediately accept them as first class citizens of your nation and let them do as the please - as if they didn't hold violent grudges against your nation and would act on them when you settled there? Especially if they were the aggressors to begin with. You aren't being realistic in this matter.

A poor person who sells themselves as a slave isnt wrong. The person who buys them is.

If the person who buys them treats them like a hired hand, or even as family, then where is the harm? The poor person is better of for it - in fact, their life has been saved. And, under OT slavery, they could run away at any time if mistreated.

I don't think you can honestly refer to mcdonalds employees as slaves. Sweat shop workers, maybe, but then again we all kmow that sweat shops are immoral.

McDonalds fits the definition of slavery to a T, especially when the person in question is elderly: "a person who works in harsh conditions for low pay"

Apart from a teenager looking for their first job - everyone else working there, or any other place paying minimum wage (~60% of the US workforce) is doing hard work and not even receiving enough money to afford to rent a single-bedroom apartment. It very much is slave labor.

Why are you so defensive of slavery? You're arguing over how we can soften its definition in a historical sense when its overwhelmingly clear what it actually meant?

"Slavery isn't ideal, but its better than death." Well so is torture, false imprisonment and persecution. If that's your moral standard, I don't think you have a leg to stand on.

Did you actually just say that owning a person isn't immoral? That it was just an assertion on my part?

You didn't answer my question. Is it immoral to own another human as your legal property? Commit to an answer instead of flapping.

I'm not softening the definition of slavery, I'm correcting your faulty perspective that all forms of slavery/servitude are identical and unequivocally evil. It has always existed in a multitude of forms, and we see it all around us to this day. Some forms treat the servants as human beings, even as family, with legal protections under the law. Others treated them as mere objects that you could kill, rape, torture, etc. as you pleased and suffer no consequence. To say that you see no difference between these is simply intellectually dishonest.

A master having slaves/servants is not in of itself immoral - what matters is how those individuals are treated. If respected as fellow human beings, even loved as family, with legal protections against their mistreatment, THAT is morally OK. If they are treated as sub-human scum that you can kick around, kill, rape, etc. without a second thought - that is immoral.

 

[leroy]

Just for my inho, if that is not objectively wrong,
then nothing is.

That my point, if you claim that it is objectively wrong, then you are granting objective morality

 

[Audie]

That my point, if you claim that it is objectively wrong, then you are granting objective morality

I am ok with that, depending of course on what one
thinks that implies.

 

[David1967]

But to only partially believe the bible - but in the same breath hold it up as the only evidence for god? That's what confuses me. I'm struggling to understand your definition of cherry picking, or to be exact, what you think mine is.

Thanks for the friendly reply btw, much appreciated.

I think it depends on how you view the Bible, or at least as it is now consisting of old and new testament. Does one view it as one book or a collection of several books? Is it the word of God, or does it contain the word of God? Lots of different views to get through.

 

[Audie]

I



If the person who buys them treats them like a hired hand, or even as family, then where is the harm? The poor person is better of for it - in fact, their life has been saved. And, under OT slavery, they could run away at any time if mistreated.



.

This has long been a practice in many parts of the
world, and is /has been the most practical and
humane arrangement that was possible.

It is well withing living memory when members of
my extended family kept "slaves" in this sense.

 

[leroy]

I am ok with that, depending of course on what one
thinks that implies.

I simply implies that you grant “premise 2” in the moral argument, this means that one simply needs to convince you that premise 1 is true and you should become a theist.

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.

2. Objective moral values do exist.

3. Therefore, God exist.

Based on what I know the only “naturalist” explanation for OMV that is supported by philosophers is “moral Platonism” which in my opinion is a very absurd view.

So do affirm that moral Platonism is a better explanation for the existence of OMV than God, or do you have another alternative explanation?

 

[Hawkins]

"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them."

I mean, what context am I missing here?

The question is, seeing how the above (and other morally questionable concepts) is written in the bible, and the bible is supposedly written by people who were channeling god or were inspired by god, how do you choose which bits are correct and why not just remove the bad bits?

It only shows that you missed the whole point of what is said.

The Law given to Moses to a certain extent (not full extent as even Mosaic Law is incomplete), reflects what God hates, especially those laws demand a bloodshed. It is specified so such that those who deliberately choose to violate without repentance is completely incompatible with God. Thus they can't live in an eternity with God.

So it boils down to the point that if you want humans to accept homosexuality then it's fine. If however you want God to accept homosexuality, then you need to ask Him. He said through the Bible that He won't. Period!

God's chosen people, that is ancient Israel, is for God to express who He is! Removing the "bad bits" in this case means you will be clueless about what He wants in terms of an eternity!

 

[Audie]

I simply implies that you grant “premise 2” in the moral argument, this means that one simply needs to convince you that premise 1 is true and you should become a theist.

"I implies", or "It implies"?

I will go with "I" implies for lo, ifn you find it
says one must perforce be a theist, I dont.

Just a different way of looking at what is objective,
but it is just a semantic game, really.

Takes more than semantics-semantics to
conjure up a "god'.

 

[leroy]

"I implies", or "It implies"?

I will go with "I" implies for lo, ifn you find it
says one must perforce be a theist, I dont.

Just a different way of looking at what is objective,
but it is just a semantic game, really.

Takes more than semantics-semantics to
conjure up a "god'.

It might be semantics, but I did explain what I meant by OMV.

If you grant what I (and theist) call OMV, then you grant premise 2 of the moral argument.

So do you grant OMV? Yes or no?

 

[wandering peacefully]

"I implies", or "It implies"?

I will go with "I" implies for lo, ifn you find it
says one must perforce be a theist, I dont.

Just a different way of looking at what is objective,
but it is just a semantic game, really.

Takes more than semantics-semantics to
conjure up a "god'.

I don't understand the leap from having morals enough to know stoning another human for sexual behavior is just plain sick, to having to believe a god or The God exists in order to know that. It makes zero sense to me.

 

[dybmh]

An objective truth if something that is truth regardless of human (or non human) opinion, for example 9 x 3 = 27 this is objectively true and would be true regardless if some people disagree, even if all humanity where to say that 9x3=20 it would still be true that 9 x 3 = 27 and those who claim that 9 x 3 = 20 are simply wrong

An Objective Moral Value is just a value that is true despite human opinion, for example torturing a child for fun is objectively wrong in the same way 9 x 3 = 27 is objectively true.

The point is that if you argue that the bible promotes stuff that is morally wrong in an objective sense, then you are granting that OMV do exists, (being OMV hard to justify in my opinion)

So my question would be, is stoning gay people morally wrong in an objective sense, or it just a social contract? Is it truly and objectively wrong to stone a gay man, or is stoning a gay man just “inconvenient” for the survival of our specie and flourishing of our society?

If you say that stoning a gay man is objectively wrong I would ask you: how do you justify the existence of “objective wrong” under atheism?

If you say that stoning a gay man is just an inconvenient thing to do (a social contract) then why making a big deal if the bible promotes it? If nothing is objectively wrong, then all you have is your personal opinion, you personally believe that stoning a gay man is wrong, but others might have a different opinion and nobody would be wrong (just different opinions)

Yes. Stoning gay people because they are gay is wrong.

Did I say or imply otherwise?

You asked: "how do you justify the existence of objective wrong under atheism?"

I don't justify it. I'm not an Atheist.

 

[Audie]

It might be semantics, but I did explain what I meant by OMV.

If you grant what I (and theist) call OMV, then you grant premise 2 of the moral argument.

So do you grant OMV? Yes or no?

Now, that is a semantic game I decline to play, sorry -ah.

 

[Audie]

I don't understand the leap from having morals enough to know stoning another human for sexual behavior is just plain sick, to having to believe a god or The God exists in order to know that. It makes zero sense to me.

In the absence of anything more substantial than
an empty sky as evidence, any sort of verbal
sleight of hand will do as proof.

The Kalam Cosmo folks at least try to make sense.

 

[Dan Mellis]

It's not a matter of softening the definition, it's understanding that the scope of the things that fall under the definition of slavery and servitude is much larger and more pervasive than you are letting on - including things which you find perfectly acceptable. Hence your trouble understanding that an elderly person being forced to work at McDonalds or the like is, in fact, a form of slavery. You don't see literal chains or whips - so you think that acceptable.

What makes a given version of the master-slave relationship acceptable or not is not that such a hierarchical position exists - there is really no avoiding such relationships. What matters is how the master treats his servant. What made American Slavery so evil was not the fact that they had slaves, but that the slavery was driven by hate, racism and greed. The individuals weren't seen as people, but merely 1/3 of a person. Anything could be done to them without consequence.

The scriptures say that slaves are the masters property - but qualifies that with various restrictions and rights to the slaves benefit. The master can't simply do whatever he wishes. A master could punish a slave, but not kill them or bring any serious harm to them. And, if mistreated, the slaves were free to run away. No - the OT scriptures teach to treat slaves/servants as family. This goes well beyond sometimes treating a slave nicely to a fundamentally different relationship altogether.



Answer the question: what should be done with the local population? Will you kick them out and send them traveling for a new place to live - dying along the way? Will you immediately accept them as first class citizens of your nation and let them do as the please - as if they didn't hold violent grudges against your nation and would act on them when you settled there? Especially if they were the aggressors to begin with. You aren't being realistic in this matter.



If the person who buys them treats them like a hired hand, or even as family, then where is the harm? The poor person is better of for it - in fact, their life has been saved. And, under OT slavery, they could run away at any time if mistreated.



McDonalds fits the definition of slavery to a T, especially when the person in question is elderly: "a person who works in harsh conditions for low pay"

Apart from a teenager looking for their first job - everyone else working there, or any other place paying minimum wage (~60% of the US workforce) is doing hard work and not even receiving enough money to afford to rent a single-bedroom apartment. It very much is slave labor.



I'm not softening the definition of slavery, I'm correcting your faulty perspective that all forms of slavery/servitude are identical and unequivocally evil. It has always existed in a multitude of forms, and we see it all around us to this day. Some forms treat the servants as human beings, even as family, with legal protections under the law. Others treated them as mere objects that you could kill, rape, torture, etc. as you pleased and suffer no consequence. To say that you see no difference between these is simply intellectually dishonest.

A master having slaves/servants is not in of itself immoral - what matters is how those individuals are treated. If respected as fellow human beings, even loved as family, with legal protections against their mistreatment, THAT is morally OK. If they are treated as sub-human scum that you can kick around, kill, rape, etc. without a second thought - that is immoral.

1: your attempt to classify mcdonalds workers and military personell as slaves is disingenuous. They are employees and are treated as such - personal development, promotion opportunities, pensions, benefits all come under working conditions. No reasonable person could ever classify an employee as a slave.

2: It is not moral. We're done. I will not dignify any more of your vile arguments with a response.

 

[leroy]

Yes. Stoning gay people because they are gay is wrong.

Did I say or imply otherwise?

You asked: "how do you justify the existence of objective wrong under atheism?"

I don't justify it. I'm not an Atheist.

Are you a theist?


If not, i woudl ask,:... how do you justify "objectivly wrong" as a non-theist?

Under what metric did you determine that stoning a gay man is morally wrong?