Does atheism scare you?

[Audie]

You are simply wrong. Go look at a dictionary. Here's an example: religion.

Nah. Complexity and grotesquely wrong on all points.

 

[Audie]

*sigh* do you even read the replies you get? Belief (or lack thereof) simply isn't a choice. You're either convinced or you're not. If it were a choice you could choose to disbelieve in your god for a day and then believe again the next day. You could choose to believe the world is flat or that the tooth fairy is real. These are not choices.

What you can do (and what everybody should do) is question their beliefs when new (or new to them) information, evidence, or reasoning, is encountered.



Another anti-atheist rant.

You really would do a lot better if you read the replies you got and stopped trying to mind-read atheists. A lot of this also looks like projection. It's you who seems to see people who don't believe as you do as a threat. It's you who seem to be offended and who want to fight tooth and claw.

Calm down, make a cup of tea or something, and actually try reading what is being said to you. Then think about it before answering. You'd do far better for your cause, I'm sure.

You want that " cause" to be more successful?

 

[ratiocinator]

Tell you what.
I have studied the Bible's instruction of Slavery, And I found it to be beautifull!
Did you lnoe that what you have heard of the Biblical account of being sold as a slave to a rich famity, was one of Humanitary support?
Do you know this was an institution to save poor families from famine and destruction?
do you know:
that this person sold as a slave to another family, aggreed to be sold to save his family?
that the purchaser had to pay the family 7 years' of wages?
that the sold slave will only be in dervice untill the sabatical year, which was every 7th year?
that when this slave finished his term, the owner had to pay out equall to his estate as to the increase over the term the slave worked.
that if it was a woman, she will have the same rights and any other women in Israel,
that you are not allowed to hurt a slave, for if he so much as loose a tooth, you will set him free without any compensation
if the slave owner wanted to marry a girl, and bought he to save her family, she will be a free voman and will also have a claim to his estate.
If he bought a slave woman with the idea to marry her, and changes his mind, he will not be permitted to treat her bad, and she will be set free.
a slave will not work on the sabbath.
any slave master who kills a slave, will also be charged with murder, and will be executed.

Quite apart from the detail (e.g. foreigners [non- Israelites] could be made slaves for life: Leviticus 25:44-46), It is truly and deeply horrifying that you would even attempt to justify slavery, let alone call it 'beautiful', on the basis that it was somehow well regulated.

Yet more evidence (as if it were needed) that it is atheists who should be worried about theist morality, rather than the other way around.

Next time before you accuse the Word of God, I suggest you read it for yourself.

I have read the bible (all of it), so once again your assumptions are simply false.

 

[Audie]

Quite apart from the detail (e.g. foreigners [non- Israelites] could be made slaves for life: Leviticus 25:44-46), It is truly and deeply horrifying that you would even attempt to justify slavery, let alone call it 'beautiful', on the basis that it was somehow well regulated.

Yet more evidence (as if it were needed) that it is atheists who should be worried about theist morality, rather than the other way around.


I have read the bible (all of it), so once again your assumptions are simply false.

" We " don't have a book that tells us line
after line about how stupid, immoral and generally bad believers are.

 

[SA Huguenot]

Quite apart from the detail (e.g. foreigners [non- Israelites] could be made slaves for life: Leviticus 25:44-46), It is truly and deeply horrifying that you would even attempt to justify slavery, let alone call it 'beautiful', on the basis that it was somehow well regulated.

Yet more evidence (as if it were needed) that it is atheists who should be worried about theist morality, rather than the other way around.


I have read the bible (all of it), so once again your assumptions are simply false.

I do not understand why you stopped at verse 46 and did not continue to verse 55.
But, howewr it may,
In Leviticus 25 you find that Isrel were not allowed to go out and capture people from the other nations to make them slaves, but that Israel could buy slaves from the heathens WHO WERE SELLING THEM.
Furthermore, Solomon and David had these bondsmen working as laborours in their governments and projects.
These people were to remain Bondsmen for life, for they were not Israelites, and were not allowed to own the land prommised by God to Abrahams descendends

However, they were treated well, and were paid for their services.
A quick search reveals that these Strangers were to be treated with the same law, as for Israel, they could get wealthy, they could have owned Israelite slaves if they were not outside of Israel.
, they could have families and so on.
Thanks for this superficial argument that these strangers were treated as the slaves who were sold by muslim tribes in Africa to the West and were used as slave laborors in the cotton fields of the Americas.
Such a correlation is incorrect.
Exo_12:49 One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you.
Exo_22:21 Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.
Exo_23:9 Also thou shalt not oppress a stranger: for ye know the heart of a stranger, seeing ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.
Lev_19:10 And thou shalt not glean thy vineyard, neither shalt thou gather every grape of thy vineyard; thou shalt leave them for the poor and stranger: I am the LORD your God.
Lev_19:33 And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him.
Lev_19:34 But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.
Lev_24:22 Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the stranger, as for one of your own country: for I am the LORD your God.
Lev_25:47 And if a sojourner or stranger wax rich by thee, and thy brother that dwelleth by him wax poor, and sell himself unto the stranger or sojourner by thee, or to the stock of the stranger's family:
Num_15:15 One ordinance shall be both for you of the congregation, and also for the stranger that sojourneth with you, an ordinance for ever in your generations: as ye are, so shall the stranger be before the LORD.

 

[SA Huguenot]

" We " don't have a book that tells us line
after line about how stupid, immoral and generally bad believers are.

So, is it something thought out by the atheists?

 

[SA Huguenot]

I have read the bible (all of it), so once again your assumptions are simply false.

Perhaps we can discuss this idea of yours that the God of the Bible condoned the slave trade in the west?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

And I made it very clear that Atheism is a religion, just as Islam and the rest.

The person who thinks that NOT believing is a "religion" is about as clever as the one who thinks that NOT collecting stamps is a hobby.

 

[ratiocinator]

I do not understand why you stopped at verse 46 and did not continue to verse 55.
But, howewr it may,
In Leviticus 25 you find that Isrel were not allowed to go out and capture people from the other nations to make them slaves, but that Israel could buy slaves from the heathens WHO WERE SELLING THEM.
Furthermore, Solomon and David had these bondsmen working as laborours in their governments and projects.
These people were to remain Bondsmen for life, for they were not Israelites, and were not allowed to own the land prommised by God to Abrahams descendends

When you're in a hole, the best advice is to stop digging. Do you really think that one human being owning another and treating them as property is morally acceptable under any circumstances?

44 Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

-- Leviticus 25:44-46 NIV​

Not only does this condone humans as property, it's racist to boot.

Perhaps we can discuss this idea of yours that the God of the Bible condoned the slave trade in the west?

Who said anything about "the slave trade in the west"? What has place or time got to do with morality - especially if you think it's objective and given by some unchanging god?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Perhaps we can discuss this idea of yours that the God of the Bible condoned the slave trade in the west?

The God of the Bible wasn't all that bright -- he didn't even know about the west.

 

[Audie]

When you're in a hole, the best advice is to stop digging. Do you really think that one human being owning another and treating them as property is morally acceptable under any circumstances?

44 Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

-- Leviticus 25:44-46 NIV​

Not only does this condone humans as property, it's racist to boot.


Who said anything about "the slave trade in the west"? What has place or time got to do with morality - especially if you think it's objective and given by some unchanging god?

Religionists can be scary.

I've been told by someone he was just waiting for Word to start killing atheists.
At least it's not inquisition time when they
might have taken days to slowly kill me,
he figured hanging from a lamppost would do.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Tell you what.
I have studied the Bible's instruction of Slavery, And I found it to be beautifull!
Did you lnoe that what you have heard of the Biblical account of being sold as a slave to a rich famity, was one of Humanitary support?
Do you know this was an institution to save poor families from famine and destruction?
do you know:
that this person sold as a slave to another family, aggreed to be sold to save his family?
that the purchaser had to pay the family 7 years' of wages?
that the sold slave will only be in dervice untill the sabatical year, which was every 7th year?
that when this slave finished his term, the owner had to pay out equall to his estate as to the increase over the term the slave worked.
that if it was a woman, she will have the same rights and any other women in Israel,
that you are not allowed to hurt a slave, for if he so much as loose a tooth, you will set him free without any compensation
if the slave owner wanted to marry a girl, and bought he to save her family, she will be a free voman and will also have a claim to his estate.
If he bought a slave woman with the idea to marry her, and changes his mind, he will not be permitted to treat her bad, and she will be set free.
a slave will not work on the sabbath.
any slave master who kills a slave, will also be charged with murder, and will be executed.

Now, I am sure you never knew about these rules and regulation, because you were deceived on what the Bible says.
Next time before you accuse the Word of God, I suggest you read it for yourself.
Greetings

I don't know why I'm surprised, but I am. Here you are, claiming that the Bible is the sole source of a real, objective morality -- and at the same time defending the Bible's position on slavery, even to the point of calling it "beautiful."

But I would like you to think about that: if the Bible is truly the sole source of objective morality, then that objective morality can never change, because the Bible never changes. This leaves the door wide-open for the continuance of the institution of slavery -- so long as it is, according to you, "well regulated."

Really, that a person, a human being, should be denied the freedom to choose where to go and what to do for themselves, merely at the whim of another person?

I'd really like to see you defend that position, because that is what you very much appear to mean.

 

[Kenny]

Firstly, reality is under no obligation to make life easy. Secondly, even in the absence of an objective standard (in practice), humans tend to agree about quite a lot considering.



It's you who suggested it as a standard. The bible's (even the NT) stance on slavery is a disgrace.



Your point 1 seems mostly irrelevant and somewhat dangerous. We are learning to our cost that we can't just do what we like to the earth. Point 2 is basically the golden rule and an example of something that comes up many times when people think of morality - no god(s) required.

No... the OP was about “why” a God standard is necessary... I just happen to have a position that Jesus is the standard. But you can be your own god if you like.

The Jesus standard is not a slave standard (as I have already explained). Ignoring what I said doesn’t mean that you can dictate what I said.

As I also explained, my position (you can disagree if you want) that God is necessary. However, no heart can change because of a law and thus we continue to have problems. But, a heart changed by God has His love laws written in their hearts (Christian perspective) and by loving God first, you can love your neighbor as yourself better.

 

[Kenny]

Not only is this simply not true, it is also obviously false.
At bottom, morality isn't that complicated. It's connected to the well-being of sentient beings on all levels (from the individual all the way to the whole group / society). Generally we can say that things that increase well-being are good and things that increase suffering are bad.

That's the bottom line.

Obviously in a complex society this becomes very complex. There's an inumerable amount of factors to keep into account, like individual rights and freedoms. This is why you can't knock 1 person out to harvest their organs and then save 10 people with those organs.

But at bottom, it's easy and simple and clear.
And that's the standard.




The only problem here is that you are so blinded by religious belief concerning morality, that you can't even fathom the other option.

I submit, btw, that while you attribute your morality to god / religion, really you do it in the same way all of us do. You reason your way through based on the available information with a standard in mind that is connected to well-being of sentient creatures.

And I'ld further submit that whenever religion comes into it, it only ends up poisoning this process, leading to conclusions like homophobia.




So we are just going to ignore the parts in the bible that explicitly allow and regulate slavery, which is never ever revoked or retracted?

Sounds good to me.

Here's that reasoning process at work that I was talking about.
Your actual moral standard informs you that slavery is evil. So a priori, you know that you need to interpret your bible in such a way that it agrees slavery is evil. So you've come up with those 2 points. In the process, you conveniently ignore that the same book explicitly allows and regulates slavery. To the point of explaining how hard you may beat your slave.

Now that I brought it up, you are going to come up with the excuse that you use of how jesus brought a "new covenant" and how "the old laws don't apply anymore". Yet for centuries, the slave trade was defended with waving bibles. Curious how after 2000 years, suddenly it is discovered how the book doesn't allow slavery, now that it is universally recognized as an evil practice in modern human society.

Here's the thing that is happening.
You are not deriving your morals from the bible. Instead, you are super imposing your morals on it.
You cherry pick and "selectively interpret" to make it match your opinions and beliefs on the subject.

I firmly believe there will come a time, where homosexuality gets the same treatment as slavery gets today.
Then also, there will be people on forums saying that "the bible never was homophobic" and wave some verses around that they'll interpret to make it say what they want it to say.

LOL - Your “blind” comment was quite amusing.

It might help if you go back to the OP and read everything in context of it.

Your interpretation of scripture is off IMO. Yes, people waved the Bible’s touting slavery but why do you ignore that the people who stopped slavery also waved Bibles and said it wasn’t scriptural? Is there a reason you ignore that?

Both can’t be right... with precedent and with what Jesus said, I believe I have enough supportive evidence.

Homophobia seems to be a standard broad brush that is used when someone has a different viewpoint. Is it because you are dealing Christophobia?

So, no matter how you slice it, morality without God leads to justifying trimester abortions. Therefore, in light of the OP, my position is that you do need a God standard.

But you are welcome to have your own position.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Your interpretation of scripture is off IMO.

Isn't everybody's..... there's about as much interpretations as there are believers.

Yes, people waved the Bible’s touting slavery but why do you ignore that the people who stopped slavery also waved Bibles and said it wasn’t scriptural? Is there a reason you ignore that?

I don't ignore that at all. It in fact proves the point I was making.

Both can’t be right... with precedent and with what Jesus said, I believe I have enough supportive evidence.

And with literal regulating of the practice of slavery the slavers believed the same.

Homophobia seems to be a standard broad brush that is used when someone has a different viewpoint

Nope. It's instead a pretty standard phobia among the religious, especially the more fundamentalistic.
And the first and only reason for that is because the scriptures say it is a sin.

Is it because you are dealing Christophobia?

Nope.

So, no matter how you slice it, morality without God leads to justifying trimester abortions
. Therefore, in light of the OP, my position is that you do need a God standard.

But you are welcome to have your own position.

You have yet to demonstrate that there is such a thing as a "god standard". Even within the same religion, there seems to be many different ones. ALMOST as if people have their own standards and then read into their religions what they want to read into it.

I gave you a serious argument for an actual moral standard. All you had to say is "na-ah!!!" followed by a repeat of your unsupported religious claims.

Meanwhile, the standard I gave you remains unaddressed.

I challenge you to argue against it.

 

[Kenny]

Isn't everybody's..... there's about as much interpretations as there are believers.

Nope

I don't ignore that at all. It in fact proves the point I was making.

Not really. All you proved was that one group said one thing that was negated by another. If you simply take "love you neighbor as yourself" - it isn't hard to figure who was right.

And with literal regulating of the practice of slavery the slavers believed the same.

What people did has nothing to do with the God standard. So.... irrelevant.

Nope. It's instead a pretty standard phobia among the religious, especially the more fundamentalistic.
And the first and only reason for that is because the scriptures say it is a sin.

Nope. Scriptures says everybody sins... so?

You have yet to demonstrate that there is such a thing as a "god standard". Even within the same religion, there seems to be many different ones. ALMOST as if people have their own standards and then read into their religions what they want to read into it.

I gave you a serious argument for an actual moral standard. All you had to say is "na-ah!!!" followed by a repeat of your unsupported religious claims.

Meanwhile, the standard I gave you remains unaddressed.

I challenge you to argue against it.

I didn't see a serious argument. Just a broad bush of overused statements along with your personal interpretation. But certainly nothing serious.

I gave simple examples why a moral standard is necessary. One was the killing of 6 month baby in the womb in the name of convenience and labeling it as moral. God's standard is that life is precious.

But, of course, you can call it "unsupported religious claims" - and call that serious discussion without telling me why it is unsupported.

Then you brought up slavery and I quoted two good reasons why slavery was not accepted as a God standard using two scriptures. But, of course, you can hold the position of "All you had to say is 'na-ah!!!', followed by a repeat of unsupported claims" - obviously you are wrong.

So what standard are wanting me to address?

 

[ratiocinator]

No... the OP was about “why” a God standard is necessary...

'No' to what? The OP was about objective morality and if it is evidence for a god.

The Jesus standard is not a slave standard (as I have already explained).

What does this even mean? Where did you explain it? I mentioned various historical instances of Christians behaving in clearly immoral ways and you said "if I went by what Jesus said...none of what you mentioned would be accepted". I then pointed out that Jesus didn't (as an example) condemn slavery and then you brought up your two points (the dangerous one and the golden rule - which isn't specifically Christian or related to Jesus).

As I also explained, my position (you can disagree if you want) that God is necessary.

Again, what are you referring to? I've seen no explanation as to why you think god is necessary. You've pointed out that secular position is different (because of the arbitrary nonsense that gets included with some versions of theism, about same-sex relationships and so on) and that without a standard things are 'fluid' but none of this amounts to a god being necessary. As I've pointed out, in practice we get by without a standard anyway because, despite what theists say, they too have differing positions (even within the same religion, based on supposedly the same standard).

 

[Kenny]

'No' to what? The OP was about objective morality and if it is evidence for a god.

Or... subjective morality (to whatever you feel is right) vs a God standard.

What does this even mean? Where did you explain it? I mentioned various historical instances of Christians behaving in clearly immoral ways and you said "if I went by what Jesus said...none of what you mentioned would be accepted". I then pointed out that Jesus didn't (as an example) condemn slavery and then you brought up your two points (the dangerous one and the golden rule - which isn't specifically Christian or related to Jesus).

What you have explained is what man does. (Even religious people can express subjective moral position). I said a God standard.

And I said (giving you another example) - Jesus didn't condemn cannibalism, lying on your taxes, or beating your child.... so?

Jesus made it much simpler by saying "love your neighbor as yourself) and it is related to Jesus.

I also mentioned precedent (if repeating is necessary). God made man in his image, male and female he made them. He didn't make "A man, a woman and their slave". "Precedent" and law of firsts. Or, in other legal terms, "original intent".

A God standard.

Again, what are you referring to? I've seen no explanation as to why you think god is necessary. You've pointed out that secular position is different (because of the arbitrary nonsense that gets included with some versions of theism, about same-sex relationships and so on) and that without a standard things are 'fluid' but none of this amounts to a god being necessary. As I've pointed out, in practice we get by without a standard anyway because, despite what theists say, they too have differing positions (even within the same religion, based on supposedly the same standard).

Irrelevance gone to seed.

 

[ratiocinator]

What you have explained is what man does. (Even religious people can express subjective moral position). I said a God standard.

A god standard is useless if nobody can objectively access it. In practice, there is no objective way to do so, so there is, in practice, no such standard.

And I said (giving you another example) - Jesus didn't condemn cannibalism, lying on your taxes, or beating your child.... so?

Again: it's you who brought up what Jesus said as a standard.

Jesus made it much simpler by saying "love your neighbor as yourself) and it is related to Jesus.

No - it's basically just another wording of the golden rule, which pre-dates Jesus.

I also mentioned precedent (if repeating is necessary). God made man in his image, male and female he made them. He didn't make "A man, a woman and their slave". "Precedent" and law of firsts. Or, in other legal terms, "original intent".

A God standard.

Irrelevant and useless mythology.

 

[Kenny]

A god standard is useless if nobody can objectively access it. In practice, there is no objective way to do so, so there is, in practice, no such standard.



Again: it's you who brought up what Jesus said as a standard.



No - it's basically just another wording of the golden rule, which pre-dates Jesus.



Irrelevant and useless mythology.

OK... I think we have come to the conclusion that, as we both have noted, our view of the standard of morality differs. Thus, IMV, a God standard will be necessary I think God believes He has a standard too.