Atheist vs. OT

Fortunate_Son
TheistTroll
Posts: 262
Joined: 2009-12-24
User is offlineOffline
Atheist vs. OT

It usually goes like this:

 

Atheist: The God of the OT is evil.

Theist: How so?

A: He kills babies, encourages slavery, and punishes people for not worshipping him.

T: Ok.  He kills babies.  So?

A: You don't see a problem with that?!

T: It depends on the situation.  All babies have a fallen nature and are under God's righteous condemnation.  We all deserve death, according to God's law.

A: Babies deserve death?  They haven't done anything.

T:  It doesn't matter.  It is in their nature to break God's law.  God has a lawful right to kill any baby that He wants.

A:  That's sick.

T: Just because you don't like it does not mean it is wrong.  God is eternally holy and righteous.  When we sin, it is eternally against Him and warrants an eternal punishment.  To have a sinful nature is to be inherently against Him.  But God is also merciful, and he may have very well allowed the babies into Heaven, which would mean that he did not punish them at all.  Neither you nor I know either way.

 

A: God allows slavery.

T: So?

A: Slavery is wrong.

T: Why?

A: It devalues people.

T: I'm glad that you concede people have value.  But okay, God allows slavery.  Do you have a point?

A: God can't be good if he allows slavery.

T: Just because he allowed it does not mean he liked it. 

A: Then why did he say that it was okay to beat a slave?

T: In biblical times, slaves were people who offered themselves as personal property in order to pay a debt.  They entered into what amounted to a contact, giving masters the right to use physical punishment if need be.  God in no way encourages it, he simply allows it but warns masters that if a slave should be beaten to death, then the slavemaster will be condemned.  Likewise, God made it clear that no human has a right to own another human without consent.

A: Why didn't God just tell us to abolish slavery?

T: There are many things God could have told us that he did not tell us.  He was operating within a particular time period and dealt with people in the context of their present social norms.  God's revelation wasn't about giving people easy solutions for all of eternity.  He wanted his message absorbed in a particular way at a particular time.  In 1,000 years, people may look back at us and say that we were barbaric and God should have told us to change.


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Baby killing is pretty tough

Baby killing is pretty tough to defend, especially since your god isn't the only option. There are probably lots of other gods with less baby-blood on their hands to choose from.  Were I in your place I'd have said "So what if god kills babies, abortion doctors kill babies all the time. So god is no worse than an abortion doctor." Of course abortions usually come by request, they're not fired out of the ethereal plane without any hint or preview. It would probably still go over better than "Everyone deserves to be killed by god, even babies."

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3681
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Okay, so to clarify.Killing

Okay, so to clarify.

Killing babies and slavery are not immoral? Or, is it just not immoral when God approves because God owns everyone?

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


ronin-dog
Scientist
ronin-dog's picture
Posts: 419
Joined: 2007-10-18
User is offlineOffline
So your style of posting is

So your style of posting is going to be hypothetical arguments? Even when you are providing both sides of the argument you aren't very good at it.

Here is my argument:

RD: Have you actually read the OT? It is nutty as all batshit and full of really horrible stories of murder and cruelty. Do you really think that it makes sense and that it describes the god you were  told about in Sunday school? If you really believe that I feel sorry for you.

Zen-atheist wielding Occam's katana.

Jesus said, "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division." - Luke 12:51


Fortunate_Son
TheistTroll
Posts: 262
Joined: 2009-12-24
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:Okay, so

butterbattle wrote:

Okay, so to clarify.

Killing babies

It depends on the situation. 

 

Quote:
 slavery are not immoral?

God never declares it to be moral or immoral.  He did forbid specific kinds of slavery.  The bible makes it clear that no man has the right to own another man without his consent. 

Quote:

Or, is it just not immoral when God approves because God owns everyone?

According to God's law, the penalty for sin is death.  All babies are under original sin and therefore are under God's righteous condemnation.  God has the right to kill babies.


Fortunate_Son
TheistTroll
Posts: 262
Joined: 2009-12-24
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote:Baby killing is

Gauche wrote:

Baby killing is pretty tough to defend, especially since your god isn't the only option. There are probably lots of other gods with less baby-blood on their hands to choose from.  Were I in your place I'd have said "So what if god kills babies, abortion doctors kill babies all the time. So god is no worse than an abortion doctor." Of course abortions usually come by request, they're not fired out of the ethereal plane without any hint or preview. It would probably still go over better than "Everyone deserves to be killed by god, even babies."

So killing babies is okay as long as the parents request it?  The parents have a say into whether or not their children live or die?

Yes, everyone deserves to be killed by God, even babies.  What's the problem?


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_Son wrote:So

Fortunate_Son wrote:

So killing babies is okay as long as the parents request it?  The parents have a say into whether or not their children live or die?

If you're asking whether doing something to a person against their will is worse than doing it to them with their consent I'd have to say yes. If babies should be killed at all is a more complicated, open ended question.

Quote:
Yes, everyone deserves to be killed by God, even babies.  What's the problem?

Other than you looking like a freak?


 

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


Sinphanius
Sinphanius's picture
Posts: 284
Joined: 2008-06-12
User is offlineOffline
Interesting...

Quote:
He was operating within a particular time period and dealt with people in the context of their present social norms.

As Always, the theist completely misses the point of the Slavery Argument.

So Gott, in his infinite wisdom and Power, when speaking to a group of people who were already fanatically devoted to him and willing to slaughter their own brothers at his command, provided only concepts of morality that were close enough to the present concept of morality that the people would not object to them, and thus, made them close enough that they were derivable by the people of the time on their own? Thus, Gott hasn't actually really done anything of note in the subject of morality, and is about as useful as human theorists on morality?

And this is your argument For Gott?

To Quote Stephen Fry;
"And what is the point of the Catholic Church, if it says, 'Well, we couldn't know better, because nobody else did'? Then what are you for!"

Although he was speaking specifically to the Catholics he was debating, and even more specifically to Anne Widdecombe's comment that all societies of the time practiced slavery, thus trying to excuse Christianity's practice of Slavery, I level it against all religions, for all moral crimes.
Quote:
God made it clear that no human has a right to own another human without consent.

Really. Got a specific Verse for that claim?
Quote:
Yes, everyone deserves to be killed by God, even babies. What's the problem?

Well, since you are now supporting an Omnicidal Maniac with an Infanticide and Torture Fetish, I would have to say that.

And yet you still claim a higher sense of morality. Irony. At least The Doomed Soul has the decency to admit he is a Sick Twisted Heartless Bastard.
 

When you say it like that you make it sound so Sinister...


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Some day there needs to be

Some day there needs to be an "Atheists versus the way the Jews read the Torah" debate.

We'd need to have a lot of Jewish Atheists to have it, but it would be a lot more interesting.  And a lot more honest.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Fortunate_Son
TheistTroll
Posts: 262
Joined: 2009-12-24
User is offlineOffline
Sinphanius wrote:Quote:He

Sinphanius wrote:


So Gott, in his infinite wisdom and Power, when speaking to a group of people who were already fanatically devoted to him and willing to slaughter their own brothers at his command, provided only concepts of morality that were close enough to the present concept of morality that the people would not object to them, and thus, made them close enough that they were derivable by the people of the time on their own?

Actually, they weren't fanatically devoted to him.  People were constantly breaking his law.  Therefore, they were constantly subject to his wrath.  They didn't follow the laws that he gave them and sin had to constantly be repaid.  That's why he sent Jesus as a perfect sacrifice.

Quote:
Thus, Gott hasn't actually really done anything of note in the subject of morality, and is about as useful as human theorists on morality?

Morality isn't about "usefulness".  That is the complete antithesis of morality.  Morality is about doing what is right in spite of what may be more useful to you.  If I find $10,000 on the street, the right thing to do would be to return it to its owner, even though it would be useful for me to keep it because I may need the money just as much as the owner does.

Quote:
Really. Got a specific Verse for that claim?

"Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death."  --Exodus, 21:16

In reference to slaves, this is a direct reference to someone enslaving another without their consent.  Go ahead to Biblegateway and read the passage in context.

 

 


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_Son

Fortunate_Son wrote:

Actually, they weren't fanatically devoted to him.  People were constantly breaking his law.  Therefore, they were constantly subject to his wrath.  They didn't follow the laws that he gave them and sin had to constantly be repaid.  That's why he sent Jesus as a perfect sacrifice.

A perfect sacrifice would be a nice yummy ram or bull that can be turned in BBQ and eaten.

Jesus, having neither cloven hooves nor chewing his cud, wasn't kosher and therefore a lousy sacrifice.  Besides -- wasn't slaughtered in the Temple and cooked on the altar, so even if there is some claim that people can be used for sacrificial offerings, he was "offered" in the wrong place in the wrong manner.  Therefore -- INVALID!

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Fortunate_Son
TheistTroll
Posts: 262
Joined: 2009-12-24
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Fortunate_Son wrote:

Actually, they weren't fanatically devoted to him.  People were constantly breaking his law.  Therefore, they were constantly subject to his wrath.  They didn't follow the laws that he gave them and sin had to constantly be repaid.  That's why he sent Jesus as a perfect sacrifice.

A perfect sacrifice would be a nice yummy ram or bull that can be turned in BBQ and eaten.

Jesus, having neither cloven hooves nor chewing his cud, wasn't kosher and therefore a lousy sacrifice.  Besides -- wasn't slaughtered in the Temple and cooked on the altar, so even if there is some claim that people can be used for sacrificial offerings, he was "offered" in the wrong place in the wrong manner.  Therefore -- INVALID!

All that is required for atonement is an offering of innocent blood.  Since animals do not have the capacity to do evil by virtue of the fact that they do not have the potential to act in accordance with moral imperatives, their sacrifice is sufficient to pay the penalty for sin-- but only temporarily.  Jesus had free will and a divine (i.e. perfect) nature, which made his sacrifice special insofar that it could make eternal restitution for all sin.  When that occurred, we no longer required animal sacrifice.

 


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_Son wrote:All that

Fortunate_Son wrote:

All that is required for atonement is an offering of innocent blood.  Since animals do not have the capacity to do evil by virtue of the fact that they do not have the potential to act in accordance with moral imperatives, their sacrifice is sufficient to pay the penalty for sin-- but only temporarily.  Jesus had free will and a divine (i.e. perfect) nature, which made his sacrifice special insofar that it could make eternal restitution for all sin.  When that occurred, we no longer required animal sacrifice.

No, what is REQUIRED for a proper sacrifice is OBEYING the LAWS that G-D gave us.  And no where in any of the LAWS which G-d gave us is "nail a Jew to a tree, and then you can stop roasting rams and bulls".  The sacrificial system is a law for all times -- "Ha'berit OLAM".  Not "Until such time as goyim decide you can quit doing it."  G-d was also very clear that a prophet who claimed that any part of the Torah was "fulfilled" is a false prophet and should be ignored and/or put to death.

What is required for atonement is a "broken spirit and a contrite heart" -- feeling remorse for having violated G-d's laws -- and making restitution to anyone who has been harmed in the process.  G-d does not need our "sacrifices", WE need to learn to live in peace and harmony, and that is not realized by turning animals into BBQ or nailing Jews to trees.  By failing to obey G-d's laws and thinking that Jesus means you can crap on people, you're earning yourself a one way ticket to Hell.

Not that Jews believe in Hell, mind you.  Just saying ...

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10139
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Oh fun. I'll stop you

Oh fun. I'll stop you here:

"T: It depends on the situation.  All babies have a fallen nature and are under God's righteous condemnation.  We all deserve death, according to God's law."

Then god is a hypocrite and evil.

"It doesn't matter.  It is in their nature to break God's law.  God has a lawful right to kill any baby that He wants."

If in their nature, and by god, then god is responsible for that evil, not them. So their condemnation is evil. So god is the epitome of evil.

I could continue, but really. All this presupposes god, and evil. When in fact, neither exist.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
This is one of the coolest

This is one of the coolest debates I've seen on this website and I say that with total sincerity. One person is saying that their god needs innocent blood and everyone deserves to be killed, and the other replies "no, we obviously need to sacrifice animals." At first I thought I might be having some sort of eggnog induced hallucination but this is really happening. There's no word for that level of win.

I hope it doesn't derail the thread but I'd like to throw Cthulhu into the mix. He's a giant squid from outer space who sleeps entombed in a city at the depths of the Pacific ocean and will one day upon a celestial alignment emerge to reclaim the earth and devour men's souls. Take that Bainbridge scholars. Here is an excerpt:

Quote:
I shall never sleep calmly again when I think of the horrors that lurk ceaselessly behind life in time and in space, and of those unhallowed blasphemies from elder stars which dream beneath the sea, known and favoured by a nightmare cult ready and eager to loose them upon the world whenever another earthquake shall heave their monstrous stone city again to the sun and air.

 

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote:This is one of

Gauche wrote:

This is one of the coolest debates I've seen on this website and I say that with total sincerity. One person is saying that their god needs innocent blood and everyone deserves to be killed, and the other replies "no, we obviously need to sacrifice animals." At first I thought I might be having some sort of eggnog induced hallucination but this is really happening. There's no word for that level of win.

It IS an eggnog induced hallucination.  The point of the sacrificial cult isn't cooking and eating BBQ, it's getting people to fix their relationships with others so they will be ALLOWED to cook and eat some BBQ.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
You just answered my first

You just answered my first three questions.

1. Is there something wrong with my eggnog?
2.Are sacrificial cults only in it for a good meal?
and 3.Who is allowed to eat what?

My next two questions are, are you a woman and are you married because you're blowing my mind with this barbecue thing.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote:You just

Gauche wrote:

You just answered my first three questions.

1. Is there something wrong with my eggnog?
2.Are sacrificial cults only in it for a good meal?
and 3.Who is allowed to eat what?

My next two questions are, are you a woman and are you married because you're blowing my mind with this barbecue thing.

1). I don't know.  But it has caused you to hallucinate.

2). There's no reason to believe that the Jewish sacrificial cult exists EXCEPT to promote good eating =and= proper social interaction.  G-d very clearly states that He (not that G-d (l'havdil) has a penis, just saying ...) does not need our sacrifices.

3). I'm a widow.  I'm also a Jew, keep a kosher home as best as I'm able, and would drive you out of your gourd with my religious freakishness.

3a). I only date monotheists.  Not 3 gods, not 0 gods, just 1 G-d.  And only one G-d.  No parts, no partners, no "persons", no "natures".  Echad -- one, unique, indivisible, Ha'Kadosh Baruch Hu, the King of Kings, Creator of Galaxies big and small -- and the source of all the best BBQ.

It's a hard religion.  But somehow I manage.  And right now, I'm going to manage a beer, I think.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
That's too bad for me I

That's too bad for me I guess. I suppose the search will have to continue for a woman who can sacrifice the meal in addition to cooking it. All levity aside, please continue your interesting discussion, as I said I don't wish to derail the conversation.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


SapphireMind
SapphireMind's picture
Posts: 73
Joined: 2009-12-20
User is offlineOffline
I maintain that if your god

I maintain that if your god thinks it's ok to torture and kill babies, he's a piece of shit who deserves no worship.

"Shepherd Book once said to me, 'If you can't do something smart, do something right.'" - Jayne

Personally subverting biological evolution in favor of social evolution every night I go to work!


Waiting for Oblivion
Waiting for Oblivion's picture
Posts: 229
Joined: 2007-10-22
User is offlineOffline
There you have it folks,

There you have it folks, christians claiming that IT'S AWWWRIIIGHTT to kill babies.


Indeterminate
Posts: 89
Joined: 2009-12-18
User is offlineOffline
Wonderful, I love a bit of

Wonderful, I love a bit of dystheism at christmas!

 


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5064
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Furry has a point I think

 

In that the priests would obviously encourage their followers to bring up the biggest tastiest critter in the paddock to 'sacrifice' in the temple. Given there was no refrigeration there would have been need for daily sacrifices. When everyone went home their sins atoned, the priests would all tuck into lamb and mint sauce. God didn't come up with this shit, bear in mind. People did. And then, as now, religion is a revenue raiser.

As far as baby killing goes, the thing I like about fortunate son is that at least he comes out and says it. Too many theists push this stuff under the carpet. We should talk about it. I wonder if fortunate son is a parent? I doubt it...When he is, his oxcytocin supplies might come up to the normal range.

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_Son

Fortunate_Son wrote:

butterbattle wrote:

Okay, so to clarify.

Killing babies

It depends on the situation. 

Wait a second. In the other thread, you claim that morality is absolute. Are you trying to have your cake, and eat it, too? 'Cause it sure looks that way.

Yummy chocolaty cake.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


Fortunate_Son
TheistTroll
Posts: 262
Joined: 2009-12-24
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold wrote:Wait a

nigelTheBold wrote:

Wait a second. In the other thread, you claim that morality is absolute.

It is.

Quote:
Are you trying to have your cake, and eat it, too? 'Cause it sure looks that way.

Yummy chocolaty cake.

Not at all.

Let's compile a list of moral laws.

"You ought to kill someone who is trying to kill you, if in fact you have no other option."

"You ought to kill someone who has committed murder in the first degree."

"You ought to speed through a red light if your wife is having a baby and you need to get her to the hospital."

All of these are ALWAYS true.  Thus, in any universe where the context is A, it is always so that we ought to do B.


There, we have satisfied the requirement of moral absolutes and we are able to take the context into account.  These laws will never change.  IF there are any future universes whereby the context is the same, it will be the case that the same OUGHT should apply.  The point of moral absolutism is not to disregard context and situations.  The point of moral absolutism is to give a metaphysical reinforcement to right and wrong. 


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_Son wrote:Yummy

Fortunate_Son wrote:

Let's compile a list of moral laws.

"You ought to kill someone who is trying to kill you, if in fact you have no other option."

so an exception to the law of thou shalt not kill, although for the most part you should do as much as possible to disable them, but when it comes to this moral dilemma most people won't have an issue as it is our basic instinct to try to live on.

Quote:

"You ought to kill someone who has committed murder in the first degree."

not necessarily an moral law, life in jail works as well. They are taken out of society for the benefit of society, no need to kill someone.

Quote:

"You ought to speed through a red light if your wife is having a baby and you need to get her to the hospital."

depending on the situation sure, calling the ambulance is better, but if you have no other choice sure.

Quote:

All of these are ALWAYS true.  Thus, in any universe where the context is A, it is always so that we ought to do B.


There, we have satisfied the requirement of moral absolutes and we are able to take the context into account.  These laws will never change.  IF there are any future universes whereby the context is the same, it will be the case that the same OUGHT should apply.  The point of moral absolutism is not to disregard context and situations.  The point of moral absolutism is to give a metaphysical reinforcement to right and wrong. 

But these are not moral absolutes that you have presented and they are not always true, you presented moral dilemmas and the solution that you would apply to them, and I have even given you an example where your moral law conflicts with the moral laws (which is really a moral dilemma, what to do with someone that is convicted of murder in the 1st degree) of various other societies, your moral absolutes in the other thread were do not cheat, lie, commit adultery or kill, yet its not true at all. We can find exceptions to them all.


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
latincanuck

latincanuck wrote:

Fortunate_Son wrote:

Let's compile a list of moral laws.

"You ought to kill someone who is trying to kill you, if in fact you have no other option."

so an exception to the law of thou shalt not kill, although for the most part you should do as much as possible to disable them, but when it comes to this moral dilemma most people won't have an issue as it is our basic instinct to try to live on.

The law is "Thou shalt not MURDER".

Argh.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder

FurryCatHerder wrote:

latincanuck wrote:

Fortunate_Son wrote:

Let's compile a list of moral laws.

"You ought to kill someone who is trying to kill you, if in fact you have no other option."

so an exception to the law of thou shalt not kill, although for the most part you should do as much as possible to disable them, but when it comes to this moral dilemma most people won't have an issue as it is our basic instinct to try to live on.

The law is "Thou shalt not MURDER".

Argh.

Oh I get it trust me I am not ignorant about that part of the bible/torah at all, I am just going with what the king james version says, thou shalt not kill, with someone that believe in absolute morals and yet can find reasons to kill babies, a human infant that cannot attack you or cause you any harm, yet is defenseless against it's attackers, which makes that murder, and not killing as in self defense.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10139
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
""You ought to kill someone

""You ought to kill someone who is trying to kill you, if in fact you have no other option.""You ought to kill someone who has committed murder in the first degree.""You ought to speed through a red light if your wife is having a baby and you need to get her to the hospital.""

I'll label these 1 2 and 3.
1) Not necessarily. What if you carry a plague, and the only way to prevent its spread is for someone to kill you? You should kill them?
2) There is no justification for capital punishment. It is barbaric, and that's the reason most of the civilised world has banished it. An example of secular morality being superior to theistic.
3) Not at all. You're going to risk multiple lives to get to a hospital faster? I could agree with going through red's IF there was no traffic under serious circumstances, but if you want a vehicle that can safely go through red's then call an ambulance.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


SapphireMind
SapphireMind's picture
Posts: 73
Joined: 2009-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_Son wrote:Not at

Fortunate_Son wrote:

Not at all.

Let's compile a list of moral laws.

"You ought to kill someone who is trying to kill you, if in fact you have no other option."

"You ought to kill someone who has committed murder in the first degree."

"You ought to speed through a red light if your wife is having a baby and you need to get her to the hospital."

All of these are ALWAYS true.  Thus, in any universe where the context is A, it is always so that we ought to do B.


There, we have satisfied the requirement of moral absolutes and we are able to take the context into account.  These laws will never change.  IF there are any future universes whereby the context is the same, it will be the case that the same OUGHT should apply.  The point of moral absolutism is not to disregard context and situations.  The point of moral absolutism is to give a metaphysical reinforcement to right and wrong. 

I'm a pacifist.  I disagree with one and two.  And actually three, because it does you no good to speed through a light if you die in the process.  I would like to believe I would hold true to number one, but I can't say for sure as I have not been there.  I know for a fact I disagree with number two. 

"Shepherd Book once said to me, 'If you can't do something smart, do something right.'" - Jayne

Personally subverting biological evolution in favor of social evolution every night I go to work!


SapphireMind
SapphireMind's picture
Posts: 73
Joined: 2009-12-20
User is offlineOffline
I'm bumping this up since

I'm bumping this up since fortunate likes to ignore and abandon threads and comments that challenge him.

"Shepherd Book once said to me, 'If you can't do something smart, do something right.'" - Jayne

Personally subverting biological evolution in favor of social evolution every night I go to work!