Does the god who supposedly created this world deserve to be worshipped?

kerravon · Mar 18, 2012

Wannabe Yogi said:
When life expectancy is low the only retirement is kids. Most cultures this means a male child. They must have a lot so at least one male child will survive. So as living standards come up and women are providing education the numbers of births go down.

This is an excuse for more of the same failed breeding habits that have been going on for as long as I have been alive.

False read the site. I already disproved this argument.

Your link is too long. Point out the bit that says that breeding exponentially is completely benign and sustainable.

The West is not so Innocent, much of the aid you talk about was given to 3 world tyrants during the cold war.

The aid is still being given today. It's being squandered.

These countries are a wash with debt.

Debt that isn't even being serviced is not what's wrong with these countries. It's out of control breeding, which no-one is addressing. Just randomly blaming on the West.

We over threw many legitimate states and put in petty tyrants.

You mean overthrew communist governments which were making a bad situation worse?

This is the past. We no longer engage in this type of thing, but the poor are still paying the price.

The poor are still breeding like rabbits. That's the real problem.

Also look at the over all system. Lets just look at one example. Every country must sell all their grain and food supplies to a big company like monsanto if they want to play on the worlds stage. If not it will not be registered in their GNP. Then they must buy it back at a much higher price. This hurts the poor in every country. It creates much higher prices.

Not sure where you're getting this from. We're talking about the free market where people can trade as they wish. No-one is forced to sell to big companies or do anything else. It's just yet another example of blaming the West for the woes of the 3rd world's out of control breeding and general ineptitude. No wonder the problem never gets resolved.

Vile Atheist · Mar 18, 2012

Slavery, in that time and place, wasn't seen as counter to the interests of that society.

It should have been.

No, but it does mean that we're being a bit hypocritical by pointing to a fault in someone else when we have the same fault.

Not at all. We're not buying and selling slaves at the market here. People don't generally support slavery unless they're trying to make a theological point. You cannot compare the widespread endorsement of buying and selling slaves at a market to people today in the First World, kinda, sorta, not really, maybe, in a roundabout sorta way, "owning" slaves because of the presence of sweatshops in the Third World. Slavery is not condoned or endorsed except for a tiny minority in the present. And surely a moral God worth worshipping (see how I'm getting back on topic?) would recognize and legislate that.

You can't do anything about the past. Pointing at a society that no longer exists and going "For shame" doesn't accomplish anything other than making ourselves feel superior.

On the contrary, people on these very boards use these texts that condone acts like mass-murder and slavery as the basis for their morality and their beliefs in general. In fact, billions of people do on the planet, even if most tend to ignore the "bad parts". It demonstrates why the God of the Bible isn't worth worshipping.

They aren't morally accountable for it because they didn't see it as immoral.

So if I kill your children, and I don't find it immoral, you won't hold me morally accountable for it? You know who saw slavery as immoral in those days? Slaves.

Writing our own book of absolute moral truisms are we? In that case, I retract my recommendation that you ever try to put yourself in anyone else's place. That would just get in your way.

I have, on this very thread, pages ago told, I think it was Bismillah, that morality is not absolute. Now you're calling me a moral absolutist?

There may be good reasons for committing murder. Like self-defence against someone actively trying to kill you. Or stopping someone else who is going on a killing rampage. There is no circumstance, absolutely none, where depriving someone of their fundamental freedoms without their consent is the more moral thing to do.

Wannabe Yogi · Mar 18, 2012

kerravon said:
They do make enough to eat. If they didn't, they would be dead, and the alleged problem would have solved itself. They make enough to eat and more, which is how they manage to breed like rabbits.

Did not Jesus ask you to care for poor.

"For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.

Then the righteous will answer him, saying, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?'

And the King will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.'"
(Matthew 25.35-40 ESV)

Quagmire · Mar 18, 2012

JMorris said:
we dont all value our lives so little as to spend it studying a book about a fictional hate filled ego-maniac.

Of course not. Time spent on an internet forum indulging in our own hate-filled egomania is so much more fulfilling.

kerravon · Mar 18, 2012

Quagmire said:
Ok, I looked, I can't find it (you have a lot of posts in this thread). Want to give me a clue? Or would you just rather call me a liar again?

You only needed to look at my reply that followed your question.

Post 208.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2850135-post208.html

"Question: if this were 1200 BCE and you were living in one of the tribes of the Hebrews, what do you suppose, you would be doing in regards to the slavery issue?"

With my current understanding of human rights, or if I was an ignorant goat-herder like everyone else? With my current understanding I would be an abolitionist, just as I wish to abolish dictators today. But alone I do not have the strength to enforce my policies, so (just like with Iraq) I would do my best to win in the free marketplace of ideas, within whatever constraints being imposed. Note that since I live in Australia where my freedom of speech is reasonably well protected, I was able to argue the case for the Iraq war without any inhibition, which was very nice.

As you can see, I asked for clarification of what your question was, and then answered it based on my guess at what you were asking.

That's a far cry from "not answering your question" as you tried to claim. The exact opposite in fact.

Vile Atheist · Mar 18, 2012

kerravon said:
Very well compared to every alternative ever tried. Taiwan and South Korea are good examples of what can be achieved in a very short time.

Are we talking about the same South Korea and Taiwan who have "legislated wages"?

South Korean Minimum Wage: 4,580 South Korean won per hour; reviewed annually.
Taiwanese Minimum Wage: NT$104 per hour.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_minimum_wages_by_country#cite_note-CRHRP-2008-9

kerravon · Mar 18, 2012

Wannabe Yogi said:
Did not Jesus ask you to care for poor.

I'm not sure why you're quoting Jesus at me, when I've stated my belief that the bible was written by ignorant goat-herders.

Regardless, do you REALLY want to care for the poor? If so, then do your best to do things like:

1. Eliminate the competitors to secular capitalist liberal democracy (note that we did this in 2003 in Iraq).

2. Do something to stop the 3rd world from breeding out of control (note that the Chinese have done something about this already).

kerravon · Mar 18, 2012

Vile Atheist said:
Are we talking about the same South Korea and Taiwan who have "legislated wages"?

South Korean Minimum Wage: 4,580 South Korean won per hour; reviewed annually.
Taiwanese Minimum Wage: NT$104 per hour.

Well I'd be interested to know if they introduced those minimum wages only after they had dragged themselves out of poverty already. Also whether they were set at rates that 99% of the population was already earning, so that they had minimal impact. Also I note that Hong Kong doesn't have a minimum wage for its locals, and it is in the same success story as South Korea and Taiwan.

Quagmire · Mar 18, 2012

Vile Atheist said:
It should have been.

Who gets to decide that?

Vile Atheist said:
Not at all. We're not buying and selling slaves at the market here.

"here"

Vile Atheist said:
People don't generally support slavery unless they're trying to make a theological point.

What? What theological point do people usually try to make by supporting slavery?

Vile Atheist said:
You cannot compare the widespread endorsement of buying and selling slaves at a market to people today in the First World,

Of course I can. I already did.

Vile Atheist said:
kinda, sorta, not really, maybe, in a roundabout sorta way, "owning" slaves because of the presence of sweatshops in the Third World.

Guess it kinda, sorta, not really, maybe, in a roundabout sorta way, went over your head (because you ducked).

Vile Atheist said:
Slavery is not condoned or endorsed except for a tiny minority in the present. And surely a moral God worth worshipping (see how I'm getting back on topic?) would recognize and legislate that.

What do you mean by God should legislate that?

Vile Atheist said:
On the contrary, people on these very boards use these texts that condone acts like mass-murder and slavery as the basis for their morality and their beliefs in general.

Wow! Clever of you to have caught those! I've been here for 5 years (today in fact) and somehow I missed all that.

Vile Atheist said:
In fact, billions of people do on the planet, even if most tend to ignore the "bad parts". It demonstrates why the God of the Bible isn't worth worshipping.

Ah, so you're on a campaign against Christianity. Was wondering why it's so hard to have an objective conversation about the Bible with you.

Vile Atheist said:
So if I kill your children, and I don't find it immoral, you won't hold me morally accountable for it?

No, I wouldn't. I would just kill you.

Vile Atheist said:
You know who saw slavery as immoral in those days? Slaves.

How do you know?

Vile Atheist said:
I have, on this very thread, pages ago told, I think it was Bismillah, that there are no moral absolutes. Now you're calling me a moral absolutist?

If you were saying there are no moral absolutes and then presenting what you feel to be moral absolutes that just makes you inconsistent.

Vile Atheist said:
There may be good reasons for committing murder. Like self-defence against someone actively trying to kill you. Or stopping someone else who is going on a killing rampage. There is no circumstance, absolutely none, where depriving someone of their fundamental freedoms without their consent is the more moral thing to do.

There ya go, a bonifide moral absolute.

Badran · Mar 18, 2012

kerravon said:
Regardless, do you REALLY want to care for the poor? If so, then do your best to do things like:

1. Eliminate the competitors to secular capitalist liberal democracy (note that we did this in 2003 in Iraq).

2. Do something to stop the 3rd world from breeding out of control (note that the Chinese have done something about this already).

So in other words, use military invasion to eliminate any different political and world views in general in other countries and societies, force people to adhere to yours, and regulate (or also force) how many children people should have. Is my understanding accurate?

If so, which part of slavery exactly do you really have a problem with? You seem perfectly fine with making decisions for other people and taking control over their lives. In fact, if i understood correctly, you're even fine with at the very least, thousands of innocent civilians dying in order for you to make sure people do as you think is best for them.

Vile Atheist · Mar 18, 2012

kerravon said:
Well I'd be interested to know if they introduced those minimum wages only after they had dragged themselves out of poverty already. Also whether they were set at rates that 99% of the population was already earning, so that they had minimal impact. Also I note that Hong Kong doesn't have a minimum wage for its locals, and it is in the same success story as South Korea and Taiwan.

So then why aren't South Korea and Taiwan sinking into oblivion with their dastardly minimum wage?

kerravon · Mar 18, 2012

Quagmire said:
Already did. you ignored most of what I had to say there.

No, I completely rebutted what you had to say.

I must have missed it then. Usually in these circumstances the considerate thing to do is to copy the post number so the other person can access it without having to search for it.

You didn't miss it. You replied to it.

So you'd be running around the camps of the ancient Hebrew tribes telling everyone to free their slaves?

If I was of what status? Writing a religious text, being the king, or as an individual? If I am an individual with limited power, do I have freedom of speech? I face the same problem today trying to get countries like Syria and Iran liberated. There's a limit to what an individual - even one with freedom of speech and living in a democracy - can do. I've certainly tried my darndest to get people to support wars of liberation.

Like I said, obviously you're much more enlightened and moral than any of the ancients were.

Most people today are, not just me.

too bad for the slaves of that time that you were born so much later.

At least the abolitionist movement did eventually rise in England and the Royal Navy ended the slave trade. Kudos to them.

kerravon · Mar 18, 2012

Vile Atheist said:
So then why aren't South Korea and Taiwan sinking into oblivion with their dastardly minimum wage?

Probably for the reasons I stated as possibilities, ie it was done after they had already become first world countries so could afford to cope with unemployment, or because it was set at levels that 99% of the population was already earning, so that it didn't have any actual effect in practice. That sort of thing can't be replicated in 3rd world countries where those sweatshops are actually better than the alternatives.

Quagmire · Mar 18, 2012

kerravon said:
You only needed to look at my reply that followed your question.

Post 208.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2850135-post208.html

"Question: if this were 1200 BCE and you were living in one of the tribes of the Hebrews, what do you suppose, you would be doing in regards to the slavery issue?"

With my current understanding of human rights, or if I was an ignorant goat-herder like everyone else? With my current understanding I would be an abolitionist, just as I wish to abolish dictators today. But alone I do not have the strength to enforce my policies, so (just like with Iraq) I would do my best to win in the free marketplace of ideas, within whatever constraints being imposed. Note that since I live in Australia where my freedom of speech is reasonably well protected, I was able to argue the case for the Iraq war without any inhibition, which was very nice.

As you can see, I asked for clarification of what your question was, and then answered it based on my guess at what you were asking.

That's a far cry from "not answering your question" as you tried to claim. The exact opposite in fact.

OK, like said, twice now, I missed that. If it'll make you feel better, I'll go ram my head into a wall until I feel I've paid for this unforgivable oversight.

With my current understanding of human rights, or if I was an ignorant goat-herder like everyone else?

What you don't understand is that you have no "current understanding of human rights" you have a different cultural perception of human rights than the ancient Hebrews did. That's it.

With my current understanding I would be an abolitionist, just as I wish to abolish dictators today. But alone I do not have the strength to enforce my policies, so (just like with Iraq) I would do my best to win in the free marketplace of ideas, within whatever constraints being imposed. Note that since I live in Australia where my freedom of speech is reasonably well protected, I was able to argue the case for the Iraq war without any inhibition, which was very nice.

In other words, in that time and place you would have been one of the Prophets, a few centuries early.

I'll take you're word for that.

Should note though that no little part of your "current (cultural) understanding of human rights" is the result of the writings and efforts of early social reformers, like the Old Testament Prophets for instance.

kerravon · Mar 18, 2012

Badran said:
So in other words, use military invasion to eliminate any different political and world views in general in other countries and societies, force people to adhere to yours, and regulate (or also force) how many children people should have. Is my understanding accurate?

If you really want to solve the problem, yes. If you would rather only half-solve the problem, then only do a subset of that.

If so, which part of slavery exactly do you really have a problem with? You seem perfectly fine with making decisions for other people and taking control over their lives.

I support rational, humanist, non-subjugating (in that order) government. That is not slavery. That is freedom. Usually there is some dictator like Saddam who is "perfectly fine with making decisions for other people and taking control over their lives", so it's a simple matter of removing him and you can half-solve the problem.

In fact, if i understood correctly, you're even fine with at the very least, thousands of innocent civilians dying in order for you to make sure people do as you think is best for them.

I am fine with a country paying a blood price to obtain freedom. I'd be willing to sacrifice 90% of Australia to avoid living under a dictator like Saddam, which I consider to be state-slavery. I don't mind having an administrator like Paul Bremer if for some reason the Australian population have been indoctrinated into Nazism etc. Based on that, I follow the golden rule and apply the same standard to other countries. Is your freedom so unimportant to you that you wouldn't be willing to pay a blood price to obtain or keep it?

JMorris · Mar 18, 2012

Quagmire said:
Of course not. Time spent on an internet forum indulging in our own hate-filled egomania is so much more fulfilling.

i know, i do it so often dont I? a day of posting every 6 months or so. im really wasting my life. i might as well volunteer to be a mod! then i could really let my egomania fly!

or better yet, i could go protest an abortion clinic! or maybe blow one up! vote for politicians who want to create a theocracy. maybe i could study my whole life to be a priest, and gain the right to rape children! maybe i could go burn down a synagogue, or a mosque, or both! maybe i could **** out 15 kids, barely raise any of them, but make sure they know its ok to abuse gay people. maybe i could start a mega church and buy fancy clothes of jewelry.

no, i think im not cut out for that. i dont quite have it in me. my silly version of egomania keeps me from wanting to hurt others or imposing my beliefs on them. my silly egomania simply wants to live free of other people's ancient, tribal, delusional, hate based belief systems. how ego maniacal of me, certainly.

Vile Atheist · Mar 18, 2012

What? What theological point do people usually try to make by supporting slavery?

Not a very good one. That because slavery exists in the Bible and there are laws regulating it, not condemning it, in a roundabout way, slavery is permissible.

What do you mean by God should legislate that?

God legislated a lot of stuff in the Bible, if you hadn't noticed. Funnily enough, he never bothered to write in "Hey guys...let's cut out the slavery, shall we?". The only situation where it isn't condoned is if the slave is Israeli.

If you were saying there are no moral absolutes and then presenting what you feel to be moral absolutes that just makes you inconsistent.

Of course not. All of morality isn't just what I personally think. There are two things that make morality relative: situations in which the circumstances surrounding one action may deem it immoral and others where it would be permissible, and what each person thinks is or isn't moral.

By my standard? There is no excusable circumstance for slavery. By the standard of some other people commenting on this very thread? It's okay if ancient Hebrews didn't know any better. How can it be absolute if there's a disagreement over whether or not it's immoral (under some circumstances)?

There ya go, a bonifide moral absolute.

Continuing from my previous point...again, all of morality isn't what I think. You think it's permissible because the ancient Hebrews didn't know any better, and we have some crap going on in the present, too. The fact that a disagreement exists obviously renders it non-absolute.

Quagmire · Mar 18, 2012

kerravon said:
No, I completely rebutted what you had to say.

You skipped over this part:

Me said:
I would say no. At least if slavery is legal it's existence is going to be acknowledged, which means the slaves themselves are going to be acknowledged, which means their condition's are going to be acknowledged.

kerravon said:
You didn't miss it. You replied to it.

That "I must have missed it" was in refernce to a completely different post. You knew that. :yes:

kerravon said:
If I was of what status? Writing a religious text, being the king, or as an individual? If I am an individual with limited power, do I have freedom of speech? I face the same problem today trying to get countries like Syria and Iran liberated. There's a limit to what an individual - even one with freedom of speech and living in a democracy - can do. I've certainly tried my darndest to get people to support wars of liberation.

Resources aside I just wanted to see where you thought you're head would be on the subject if you lived back then. Now I know. you think you'd be centuries ahead of everyone else on the planet.

kerravon said:
Most people today are, not just me.

Yes, I agree: most people today believe the same things about themselves that you believe about yourself.

kerravon said:
At least the abolitionist movement did eventually rise in England and the Royal Navy ended the slave trade. Kudos to them.

Just think what they could have done if you were there.

kerravon · Mar 18, 2012

Quagmire said:
What you don't understand is that you have no "current understanding of human rights" you have a different cultural perception of human rights than the ancient Hebrews did. That's it.

No, what you don't understand is that I, and most people alive today, have a SUPERIOR view of human rights than the ancient Hebrews did.

In other words, in that time and place you would have been one of the Prophets, a few centuries early.

Anyone with exposure to laws in a modern first world country would be a prophet, as they have indeed seen the future.

Should note though that no little part of your "current (cultural) understanding of human rights" is the result of the writings and efforts of early social reformers, like the Old Testament Prophets for instance.

No, it's just the result of a lot of people deriving things from Aristotle's golden rule, like the abolitionists in England.

Quagmire · Mar 18, 2012

Vile Atheist said:
Not a very good one.

That doesn't answer my question.

Vile Atheist said:
That because slavery exists in the Bible and there are laws regulating it, not condemning it, in a roundabout way, slavery is permissible.

Wait: now you're condoning it?

Vile Atheist said:
God legislated a lot of stuff in the Bible,

So now you're saying you actually believe the bible is the word of God? It's getting really hard to keep up with all these 180s.

Vile Atheist said:
if you hadn't noticed. Funnily enough, he never bothered to write in "Hey guys...let's cut out the slavery, shall we?". The only situation where it isn't condoned is if the slave is Israeli.

Of course not. All of morality isn't just what I personally think. There are two things that make morality relative: situations in which the circumstances surrounding one action may deem it immoral and others where it would be permissible, and what each person thinks is or isn't moral.

Look: here's what you did: a bunch of posts back you said you didn't believe in any moral absolutes, but since then you've been presenting an argument completely based on moral absolutes.

See the inconsistency there?

Vile Atheist said:
By my standard? There is no excusable circumstance for slavery.

And so, you consider your standard a moral absolute.

Vile Atheist said:
By the standard of some other people commenting on this very thread? It's okay if ancient Hebrews didn't know any better.

Saying "they didn't know any better" is once again evidence that you consider your standard an absolute: ie., anyone with a different standard doesn't know any better.

Vile Atheist said:
How can it be absolute if there's a disagreement over whether or not it's immoral (under some circumstances)?

It's still obviously an absolute in your own mind, which is what I was talking about.

Vile Atheist said:
Continuing from my previous point...again, all of morality isn't what I think. You think it's permissible because the ancient Hebrews didn't know any better,

Nope, that isn't my position at all.

Vile Atheist said:
and we have some crap going on in the present, too. The fact that a disagreement exists obviously renders it non-absolute.

LOL! You can say and explain all day long why you don't consider something an absolute, but if you continue to treat it as such, again, all you're doing is being inconsistent.

And refusing to look at that doesn't render it irrelevant.

Does the god who supposedly created this world deserve to be worshipped?

Anti-subjugator

Loud and Obnoxious

Well-Known Member

Imaginary talking monkey

Anti-subjugator

Loud and Obnoxious

Anti-subjugator

Anti-subjugator

Imaginary talking monkey

Veteran Member

Loud and Obnoxious

Anti-subjugator

Anti-subjugator

Imaginary talking monkey

Anti-subjugator

Democratic Socialist

Loud and Obnoxious

Imaginary talking monkey

Anti-subjugator

Imaginary talking monkey