Does atheism scare you?

[ratiocinator]

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.

You've said what you think but you haven't said why a god standard is necessary, neither have you addressed the problem that even if it exists, there is no way to objectively access it.

For example, if we want to know whether same-sex relationships are moral (which you claimed would be against a god-standard), we can't tell that from just "love your neighbour as yourself", you'd have to go to other parts of the bible but then you've got the problem that other parts of the bible (for example) condone slavery. Where then is an objective way to access a god-standard?

 

[Kenny]

You've said what you think but you haven't said why a god standard is necessary, neither have you addressed the problem that even if it exists, there is no way to objectively access it.

For example, if we want to know whether same-sex relationships are moral (which you claimed would be against a god-standard), we can't tell that from just "love your neighbour as yourself", you'd have to go to other parts of the bible but then you've got the problem that other parts of the bible (for example) condone slavery. Where then is an objective way to access a god-standard?

Again!!!... a standard is necessary because if not we have a tri-mester sacrifice on the altar of convenience.

It can be addressed because if you love your neighbor, you wouldn't extract them from old age just because it is inconvenient.

No need to touch slavery again because I already addressed it.

 

[ratiocinator]

Again!!!... a standard is necessary because if not we have a tri-mester sacrifice on the altar of convenience.

It can be addressed because if you love your neighbor, you wouldn't extract them from old age just because it is inconvenient.

Who do you think is arguing for either of these? Regardless, you've totally ignored the actual points I made. Where is the objective way to access this supposedly objective god-standard? How can it tell us same-sex relationships are bad (condemned in the bible) and slavery is bad (condoned in the bible)?

No need to touch slavery again because I already addressed it.

No you haven't. Your only response was about reducing the standard to "love your neighbour as yourself" (so you could ignore all the bits in the bible that condone slavery) which then doesn't support your other claims (e.g. about same-sex relationships).

 

[Kenny]

Who do you think is arguing for either of these? Regardless, you've totally ignored the actual points I made. Where is the objective way to access this supposedly objective god-standard? How can it tell us same-sex relationships are bad (condemned in the bible) and slavery is bad (condoned in the bible)?

You completely bypassed the trimester removal of a baby... why? And to not address it by going to other subjects?

So... what is the "objective way" to not have the sacrificing of a trimester baby on the altar of convenience? Please apply your principle for this.

No you haven't. .

Yes I did... and you didn't refute the two laws that I stipulated. Ignoring it isn't a good response.

 

[ratiocinator]

You completely bypassed the trimester removal of a baby... why? And to not address it by going to other subjects?

So... what is the "objective way" to not have the sacrificing of a trimester baby on the altar of convenience? Please apply your principle for this.

I 'bypassed' it because it's largely irrelevant to the argument (where does the bible refer to abortion?) and seems designed to bring out emotional, rather than rational/objective responses. What objective method did you use to conclude that it's objectively wrong? And late-term abortions are hardly convenient.

You also seem to be making this a circular argument. You think X is bad, so we need an objective god-standard to make sure everybody else believes the same as you. Regardless of the morality of X, it's a bad argument.

Please apply your principle for this.

I didn't put one forward. I don't think there is something totally objective we can use. As I said, morality is messy and difficult but pretending that there is an objective standard, is just that, a pretence.

The principle that has been mentioned on this thread is from Sam Harris (The Moral Landscape), and claims that morality is about the "well-being of conscious creatures". This isn't totally objective because it's a value judgement but probably one that most people could agree about. It also suffers from the difficulty of measuring "well-being" or knowing how to maximise it in a given situation. Nevertheless, it's a far better starting point than some imaginary god-standard, which pretends to be objective and unchanging but is actually down to individual interpretation.

Yes I did... and you didn't refute the two laws that I stipulated. Ignoring it isn't a good response.

I have addressed your two 'laws'. Yet again: the first is dangerous mythology and the second is basically the golden rule. I've also pointed out (and you've completely ignored it) how they can't get you to your stance that (for example) same-sex relationships are bad. In that case you'd have to add other things from the bible which opens the door to the bible condoning slavery. You have studiously ignored that point.

If you think there is an objective god-standard, what is the objective process we can go through to find out if some act X is morally right or wrong? If you can't produce a fully objective procedure that works for any X, then any claim of an objective standard is useless because there is no objective way to access it.

 

[SA Huguenot]

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

Now, Why on earth would you say it is racist for the Israel of the OT to be instructed by God to buy Slaves from the other nations around them, but they were not to be set free?
First of all, these nations around Israel were selling slaves they took by abduction.
These people were not Israel, and will at least have human rights they never would have had if they were still with the heathen nations.
Furthermore,
Why would it be racist if Israel wanted to be an identifiable nation?

I know the woke culture in the USA and UK thinks that any nationality who would like to stay the nationality they are, are now somehow "Racist".
Well, thats a lie!
You have the right to associate yourself by the nationality you wish.

I always ask:
Do I have the right to be white?
Do I have the right to be a Christian?
Do I have the right to be ruled by my own people, ( a white leader, a white judge, a white preacher...)
Do I have the right to associate with other White people?

Of corse I do!
ANY PERSON TELLING ME IT IS RACIST, ARE THEMSELF RACIST FOR THEY HATE THE SIGHT OF A WHITE MAN LIVING AS A WHITE MAN IN HIS CULTURE, WITH OTHER WHITE PEOPLE WHO ARE WHITE!

i DONT DEMAND THAT THE sWAHILI, zULU, kHOSA, bASOTHO, oVAMBO, cHINESE, jAPANESE...REFUSE TO BE WHO THEY ARE BY nATURE.
aND IF THEY WANT TO REMAIN WHO THEY ARE, i DONT THINK THEY ARE RACIST AT ALL.
nOPE, i THINK IF YOU DONT WANT TO SEE A WHITE NATION, SUCH AS gERMAN, sWISS, OR WHATEVER, ...
...
yOU ARE THE RACIST!!
PERIOD

 

[ratiocinator]

Now, Why on earth would you say it is racist for the Israel of the OT to be instructed by God to buy Slaves from the other nations around them, but they were not to be set free?

It's truly terrifying that you need to ask. They are treating foreigners differently to their own people - giving them fewer basic human rights. These people were also slaves - and slavery is, always and everywhere, a moral abomination.

First of all, these nations around Israel were selling slaves they took by abduction.
These people were not Israel, and will at least have human rights they never would have had if they were still with the heathen nations.

Sorry, but saying you are abusing and mistreating people less than they would have been otherwise, does not excuse the abuse and mistreatment. Again, it is terrifying that I need to explain this to somebody in the 21st century.

Furthermore,
Why would it be racist if Israel wanted to be an identifiable nation?

You don't have to abuse and mistreat foreigners in order to be an identifiable nation.

I know the woke culture in the USA and UK thinks that any nationality who would like to stay the nationality they are, are now somehow "Racist".
Well, thats a lie!
You have the right to associate yourself by the nationality you wish.

I always ask:
Do I have the right to be white?
Do I have the right to be a Christian?
Do I have the right to be ruled by my own people, ( a white leader, a white judge, a white preacher...)
Do I have the right to associate with other White people?

Of corse I do!
ANY PERSON TELLING ME IT IS RACIST, ARE THEMSELF RACIST FOR THEY HATE THE SIGHT OF A WHITE MAN LIVING AS A WHITE MAN IN HIS CULTURE, WITH OTHER WHITE PEOPLE WHO ARE WHITE!

i DONT DEMAND THAT THE sWAHILI, zULU, kHOSA, bASOTHO, oVAMBO, cHINESE, jAPANESE...REFUSE TO BE WHO THEY ARE BY nATURE.
aND IF THEY WANT TO REMAIN WHO THEY ARE, i DONT THINK THEY ARE RACIST AT ALL.
nOPE, i THINK IF YOU DONT WANT TO SEE A WHITE NATION, SUCH AS gERMAN, sWISS, OR WHATEVER, ...
...
yOU ARE THE RACIST!!
PERIOD

Another angry rant.

Nobody is suggesting you can't be who you are but if you regard people of different races as inferior and deserving of fewer basic human rights, you are racist.

 

[SA Huguenot]

It's truly terrifying that you need to ask. They are treating foreigners differently to their own people - giving them fewer basic human rights. These people were also slaves - and slavery is, always and everywhere, a moral abomination.


Sorry, but saying you are abusing and mistreating people less than they would have been otherwise, does not excuse the abuse and mistreatment. Again, it is terrifying that I need to explain this to somebody in the 21st century.


You don't have to abuse and mistreat foreigners in order to be an identifiable nation.


Another angry rant.

Nobody is suggesting you can't be who you are but if you regard people of different races as inferior and deserving of fewer basic human rights, you are racist.

No one said anything about treating anyone inferior.
Where did you get that idea?
Israel bought slaves from the nations around them, they did not go and kidnap them.
They had to treat them well, and not, as you say "mistreated", "abused", I do not know where you got the idea from.
Israel was given a warning not to mistreat the foreigner, twice in the Levitical law.
It is only you who are making these allegations, because:....
out of all the accusations you made about slavery in the Bible, this is the only one you can get to stick... with the use of your own glue of assumptions.

As I have studied the laws on slavery in the Bible, I could not find your claims.
Look at what you say: "You don't have to abuse and mistreat foreigners in order to be an identifiable nation."
look at what you ignored right from the Bible:

Here is the one Law of YHWH you say does not exist in the Bible:
Deu 24:14 Thou shalt not oppress an hired servant that is poor and needy, whether he be of thy brethren, or of thy strangers that are in thy land within thy gates:

Here is more
Exod 22:21
Exod 23: 9
Lev 19:33-34
Lev 25:23
Num 15:15
Deut 27: 19
Anyhow, I do not think I went on a rant.
I do assume that you were referencing yourself with the words:
"Another angry rant. "

 

[ratiocinator]

No one said anything about treating anyone inferior.
Where did you get that idea?

The bible (and yourself). Foreign slaves could be slaves for life - as you pointed out, Hebrew slaves were freed after seven years.

Israel bought slaves from the nations around them, they did not go and kidnap them.
They had to treat them well, and not, as you say "mistreated", "abused", I do not know where you got the idea from.

Having somebody as a slave is mistreating them. I just can't believe I'm talking to somebody who wants to justify slavery. It is proof beyond any reasonable doubt that religion can totally corrupt human morality.

Anyhow, I do not think I went on a rant.

Is this a joke? Go back and look at what you typed - and how you typed it (caps-lock on and no proof reading).

 

[SA Huguenot]

The bible (and yourself). Foreign slaves could be slaves for life - as you pointed out, Hebrew slaves were freed after seven years.



Having somebody as a slave is mistreating them. I just can't believe I'm talking to somebody who wants to justify slavery. It is proof beyond any reasonable doubt that religion can totally corrupt human morality.



Is this a joke? Go back and look at what you typed - and how you typed it (caps-lock on and no proof reading).

So, Did you see the verse that the Foreigner must not be mistreated?
Or are you still in a mindset that the word "Slavery" in the Bible, and the "Slaveery practiced by the American continent are the same?
Look, I can give you the facts, but denial that someone was wrong, is something I can not change.
they say, 99% of all people who fell for scams, still think they were correct in believing they were getting a bargain.
Sad HU?

 

[night912]

Now, Why on earth would you say it is racist for the Israel of the OT to be instructed by God to buy Slaves from the other nations around them, but they were not to be set free?

Why on earth would you think that not giving equal human rights to someone who is of a different race than you, is not racist.

First of all, these nations around Israel were selling slaves they took by abduction.
These people were not Israel, and will at least have human rights they never would have had if they were still with the heathen nations.

A human being who does not have the right to choose whether or not he can be
own as property by another human being,do not have human rights.

It's immoral to commit the exact act that you have acknowledged as being immoral. And it's worse when a person who didn't have human rights in his home nation is now being taken away from his home nation. Thanks for pointing out the fact that the ancient Israelites were worse than their heathen neighbors.

Furthermore,
Why would it be racist if Israel wanted to be an identifiable nation?

Why would you ask a question about whether or not something is racist if nobody ever claim that it was racist?

I know the woke culture in the USA and UK thinks that any nationality who would like to stay the nationality they are, are now somehow "Racist".
Well, thats a lie!

Well of course, your statement is a lie.

You have the right to associate yourself by the nationality you wish.

I always ask:
Do I have the right to be white?
Do I have the right to be a Christian?
Do I have the right to be ruled by my own people, ( a white leader, a white judge, a white preacher...)
Do I have the right to associate with other White people?

You asked the wrong questions.

Of corse I do!
ANY PERSON TELLING ME IT IS RACIST, ARE THEMSELF RACIST FOR THEY HATE THE SIGHT OF A WHITE MAN LIVING AS A WHITE MAN IN HIS CULTURE, WITH OTHER WHITE PEOPLE WHO ARE WHITE!

i DONT DEMAND THAT THE sWAHILI, zULU, kHOSA, bASOTHO, oVAMBO, cHINESE, jAPANESE...REFUSE TO BE WHO THEY ARE BY nATURE.
aND IF THEY WANT TO REMAIN WHO THEY ARE, i DONT THINK THEY ARE RACIST AT ALL.
nOPE, i THINK IF YOU DONT WANT TO SEE A WHITE NATION, SUCH AS gERMAN, sWISS, OR WHATEVER, ...
...
yOU ARE THE RACIST!!
PERIOD

Do you feel better about yourself now? Hope you enjoyed that short moment of comfort in your fantasy, because I'm going to pull you back to reality.

Reality is, if and when a racist person tries to convince himself that he is not racist by making statements that has nothing to do with how racism is determined. This is why I think, based on experience, the foundation of racism is ignorance.

Your ignorance, in regards to racism, disqualifies you from judging others and accusing them of being racist.

Answer these questions.

1. Do you think that a white man living as a white man who owns a black man as property because that is the way of his culture?

2. Do you think that a white man is racist if he hates the sight of that said culture?

 

[ratiocinator]

So, Did you see the verse that the Foreigner must not be mistreated?

Yes - the bible is full of contradictions.

Or are you still in a mindset that the word "Slavery" in the Bible, and the "Slaveery practiced by the American continent are the same?

I never said that they are the same in every respect - but the idea of one human being having another as property (Leviticus 25:44-46) is a moral abomination regardless of how well regulated you think it was.

Slavery is simply wrong - the fact that you are even trying to defend it, in any form whatsoever, makes your religion morally bankrupt.

Look, I can give you the facts, but denial that someone was wrong, is something I can not change.
they say, 99% of all people who fell for scams, still think they were correct in believing they were getting a bargain.
Sad HU?

I suggest a look in the mirror.

 

[night912]

So, Did you see the verse that the Foreigner must not be mistreated?

Did you see the verse that the foreigner must be dehumanized? If you did, here it is.

Leviticus 25:44
44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves

Or are you still in a mindset that the word "Slavery" in the Bible, and the "Slaveery practiced by the American continent are the same?

It's not a mindset, it's a fact that they are the same.

Look, I can give you the facts, but denial that someone was wrong, is something I can not change.
they say, 99% of all people who fell for scams, still think they were correct in believing they were getting a bargain.
Sad HU?

Look, I can give you the facts, but denial that someone was wrong, is something I can not change.
they say, 99% of all people who fell for scams, still think they were correct in believing they were getting a bargain.
Sad HU?

 

[SA Huguenot]

I still say that you are totally bias on your Biblical claim that a person in the Levitical law was a "slave".
If you read all the laws dictating on what these "Slaves" had to endure, what their duties was, what legislation was dictating their protection, the way they were to be treated, I find it interesting that you missed out on a lanslide scale that what the "Biblical slavery" was, was much better than what any employment argreement of current day legislation in any company has.

These people who were bought from the surrounding nations were to have PAYMENT for their labour.
they will have their food, free of charge, which I dont get.
They will have the same rights as the Hebrews, except for the fact that they will be in perpetual employment, which was the only difference between this employee and Hebrew citizen.
The Hebrew citizen in Israel were to be set free on the Sabatical year, which was every 7th year.
If the Hebrew were set free, he had the privelige to return to his family propperty, and to continue with his agricultural businuss.
If this foreigner were to be set free, he would have had no family or land to go back to to enable himself to be self sufficient.

He had legislation to pretect him from being hurt on the job, to be safe from assault etc.

Now, lets see if you can compare this with say the Romans who refused the Ostrogoths to enter Roman territory.
in a family with 5 children, an average of 3 died of hunger, and the grandparents saw their demise.
The only option the Ostrogoths' had was to sell the remaining child or two to the Roman army, knowing they will survive, and will be saved from famine.
This allowed the parents to be able to survive, knowing at least some of their children did not die.

from this point of view, the Romans were a way for the slave to survive under Roman slavery, and believe me, this was not so nice as the Israelite method.

Now, for anyone in the west who think they are somehow the judge of moral codes of the ancients, and any mention of slavery is an abomination, well, it is nice to judge with a full belly, and your family protected by the Judeo Christian vvalues installed by the Democratic countries of the West who was originally constructed by the Christian.

There was 2 laws concerning the obtaining od labour in Israel.
1. Employ someone from your poor family. Release them on the Sabatical year and allow them to look after themself again.
2. Employ someone from the neighbouring nations. Do not release him from this "contract of employment", for he is not an inherritor of Land in Israel.

But, he has all the protection as does the other "servants" in Israel.

I am closing off on the accusation that the Bible is bad because of slavery, for it is only a bias, and Bible hating, God hating individual that will continue to hammer on their point of view.

 

[Mock Turtle]

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.

One that supports a lying toad like Trump? Give over.

 

[Kenny]

One that supports a lying toad like Trump? Give over.

It was either that or support a lying, thieving politician like Clinton.

 

[Kenny]

I 'bypassed' it because it's largely irrelevant to the argument (where does the bible refer to abortion?) and seems designed to bring out emotional, rather than rational/objective responses. What objective method did you use to conclude that it's objectively wrong? And late-term abortions are hardly convenient.

You also seem to be making this a circular argument. You think X is bad, so we need an objective god-standard to make sure everybody else believes the same as you. Regardless of the morality of X, it's a bad argument.

I don't see it that way. I think you bypassed it because it supports my position that is very relevant.

In that God demanded the punishment of a person that caused an unnatural abortion, it is in the Bible.

Apparently this is emotional to you.

So... I hold that it is wrong by the God standard.

I didn't put one forward. I don't think there is something totally objective we can use. As I said, morality is messy and difficult but pretending that there is an objective standard, is just that, a pretence.

But you did. You said that we don't need a God standard and that objectively we can be moral. So, how do you "objectively" decide that a trimester baby can be aborted. Objectively, people have decided it is OK. The God standard is that it isn't.

I have addressed your two 'laws'. Yet again: the first is dangerous mythology and the second is basically the golden rule.

And yet again you only offer an opinion. If it is "a golden rule" - it was placed by God.

So... show me an "objective" position of why it is OK to kill a trimester baby.

 

[ratiocinator]

@SA Huguenot, the bible condones one person owning others (Leviticus 25:44-46). This is morally indefensible no matter how 'well' you think they were treated. Thanks for confirming that theism is far more morally scary than atheism.

"Frederick Douglass told in his Narrative how his condition as a slave became worse when his master underwent a religious conversion that allowed him to justify slavery as the punishment of the children of Ham. Mark Twain described his mother as a genuinely good person, whose soft heart pitied even Satan, but who did not doubt the legitimacy of slavery, because in years of living in antebellum Missouri she had never heard any sermon opposing slavery, but only countless sermons preaching that slavery was God's will. With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil—that takes religion." -- Steven Weinberg

Also, the first line of your signature ("God forbid that I should ever defend the Bible! I would rather defend a lion. Unleash the Bible, and it will defend itself!") kind of contradicts what you've been doing here. The second line ("Evolution, The religion where one believes your children more human, and your parents more Ape, than you!") is blatantly untrue - thus demonstrating another danger of some religions: they encourage plainly and objectively false beliefs.

 

[ratiocinator]

I don't see it that way. I think you bypassed it because it supports my position that is very relevant.

In that God demanded the punishment of a person that caused an unnatural abortion, it is in the Bible.

If you're referring to Exodus 21:22-25, that's about violence towards a pregnant woman that might cause an abortion. Regardless, the bible also condones slavery, so (as I keep saying and you keep ignoring) if you bring in the whole bible you have other big moral problems like slavery and genocide.

But you did. You said that we don't need a God standard and that objectively we can be moral.

No, I did not. I think you're confusing me with another poster. I said we don't have a god-based or any other objective standard. Even if such a standard exists, we have no objective way to access it.

And yet again you only offer an opinion. If it is "a golden rule" - it was placed by God.

Baseless assertion.

I also note that you completely ignored my main point (which also emphasises that I don't think there is an objective standard), so here it is again:-

If you think there is an objective god-standard, what is the objective process we can go through to find out if some act X is morally right or wrong? If you can't produce a fully objective procedure that works for any X, then any claim of an objective standard is useless because there is no objective way to access it.

 

[Kenny]

If you're referring to Exodus 21:22-25, that's about violence towards a pregnant woman that might cause an abortion. Regardless, the bible also condones slavery, so (as I keep saying and you keep ignoring) if you bring in the whole bible you have other big moral problems like slavery and genocide.

OK.... so we have established that abortion is in the bible.

I don't agree that the Bible condones slavery but rather God working through the limitations of flawed humans.

As I understand it and applying divorce in the same principle:

Matthew 19:8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

1) "from the beginning it was not so". Precedent - law of firsts (which is my point about slavery) God doesn't condone it but rather works through the reality of what hard hearts do. I don't condone abortion but work through the process of lives that have been damaged by it. In the beginning, slavery was not so.
2) New Testament is about bringing it back to the beginning where ALL mankind was made in His image and in his likeness.

No, I did not. I think you're confusing me with another poster. I said we don't have a god-based or any other objective standard. Even if such a standard exists, we have no objective way to access it.

My apologies.

Baseless assertion.

I also note that you completely ignored my main point (which also emphasises that I don't think there is an objective standard), so here it is again:-

If you think there is an objective god-standard, what is the objective process we can go through to find out if some act X is morally right or wrong? If you can't produce a fully objective procedure that works for any X, then any claim of an objective standard is useless because there is no objective way to access it.

So, now that we realize that my answers was based on my erroneous understanding of your position....

I go back to my position. Slavery... God standard... all men were created equal.