Navigation

The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us.

Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help improve critical thinking. Buy a Laptop -- Apple

Brian Sapient on Twitter

Brian Sapient

Celebrity Atheists

List of atheist sites

Ask the atheist

Antiques and Art

Study: Religion is Good for Kids

Posted on: April 18, 2011 - 5:54am

Wowzers1

Posts: 312

Joined: 2011-04-03

Offline

Study: Religion is Good for Kids

Here's a study that shows a kids from families that regularly attend worship services have better social and learning skills than those who do not.

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal

Posted on: April 25, 2011 - 6:17am #101

Wowzers1

Posts: 312

Joined: 2011-04-03

Offline

butterbattle

butterbattle wrote:

butterbattle wrote:
Religions are comprised of the people of the society; for the most part, religions absorbs their values from the society, not the other way around. A religion which possessed values that were too inconsistent with the populace would evolve or become weak and possibly extinct.
More mirror? Does not seem to be the case? Could you make a more wussy, ambiguous, and unsupported assertion?
No. Try actually reading what I'm writing. Then you might know what I wrote.

I was extending the logic of this statement, saying that it is not true... religion that run against the grain of society would be extinct, but its not... but nor does religion reflect the values from society either.

butterbattle wrote:

Lol, you mean toss out the Bible? Oh, I'm sorry; you exercise out-group homogeneity bias, so theist=Christian.

So have you gone through every religion in the world, looked at what they teach, and tossed them out accordingly?

In western societies, the battle is, generally speaking, theism vs atheism, but Christianity vs Atheism.

butterbattle wrote:

Did I "misunderstand" all the parts where your narcissistic genocidal murderer orders his sheep to slaughter innocent women and children? Oh, maybe the part where he decides to flood the entire world and kill almost every living thing to make himself feel better?

Spinning it to make something sound bad does not change the facts of the matter.

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal

Posted on: April 25, 2011 - 6:28am #102

BobSpence

Posts: 5939

Joined: 2006-02-14

Offline

Wowzers1 wrote:BobSpence1

Wowzers1 wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
Show me where slavery, rape, or torture are explicitly labelled as 'sins', in and of themselves.
Slavery in the context of OT times was rather different from what the common perception is today -- more along the lines of debtor/debt-holder responsibilities, and the provisions made for slaves and their freedom are documented. But even so, God is the great emancipator. I would contend that general attitude toward slavery is negative, as with divorce, polygamy among other things. While these things are not explicitly prohibited they are allowed.

How about this:

Quote:

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.

Leviticus 25:44-46

Or the tenth Commandment:

Quote:

Neither shall you covet your neighbor’s wife. Neither shall you desire your neighbor’s house, or field, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.

The wife and man-servant are the property of your neighbour. The situation at that time was worse than 'modern' slavery - even 'servants' were owned, ie slaves.

So don't try and make this lame cop-out. In most societies today, we are way better than ideas of that time. The only concern for God was freeing his 'chosen people' from slavery, no concern with saying slavery, owning another person, was wrong in principle.

Quote:

Rape is another issue. There's no word in Hebrew for "rape", so to label it "sin" where words as such do not exist is not possible, but given that, and that there is a general negative attitude toward fornication or sex of any kind outside of marriage, it is reasonable to think that rape is sin too. Somethings were unspeakable... and this may very well be one of those things.

Quote:

25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die. 26 But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbor, and slayeth him, even so is this matter: 27 For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her. 28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; 29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days

Property - its only a sin in this verse if the 'damsel' is 'betrothed'. Of course they didn't even have a word for 'rape', because they didn't see it as a real sin against a full person. That is part of what makes the Biblical ideas around abuse of woman totally fucked up.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
Especially in the OT, women and servants/slaves are property. Women are the property of their father until they are married, when they become the property of their husband, which to me is immoral and primitive crap. What references to and prohibitions related to what we would call rape that we find in the Bible are actually treating it as a property crime, only sinful insofar as you are abusing someone else's property, ie the woman. That is fucked up.
Almost every pronouncement connected in some way with sexual activities is similarly screwed up, such as with respect to homosexuality.
That is arguably the secular norm of the day, rather than the religious norm of the day. Womanizing was not a result of anything God instituted, but man violating God's design in marriage between a man and a woman. The New Testament teaches something radically different that anything of this sort. In fact, polygamy rose up out of Cain's descendants in Genesis, and if one follows the two lines, the was one line that was sinful and the other that was godly, and the abuse of woman came from the sinful line.
I'm not proponent of homosexuality either, but I also think that homosexuals are marginalized in some societies because they are easy prey... the bigger problem IMHO is not homosexuality be sexual misconduct all around.

BTW, who was the mother of the descendants of Cain?? You aren't seriously treating that stuff as historical??

Polygamy is not a problem if the women are openly happy to accept the set-up. True morality is not dependant on the pronouncements of some authority figure, that would be simply a legal system.

Disobedience to an authority figure, per se, is not wrong. Otherwise we would have let Hitler's deputies off when they pleaded that they 'were just following orders'. So the Garden of Eden story is not a worthy 'moral' account. The evil is compounded by visiting the consequences of the 'transgression' on all their descendants.

Sexual activity outside of marriage and/or not for the purposes of procreation is NOT 'misconduct', in a real moral framework. That is part of the sexual hangup of Christianity. As long as the act is consensual, and ideally if precautions against fertilization are taken, where applicable.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
Secular , ie real morality, is based on empathy for others, involving a concern for avoiding actual harm to them, and imposing anything on them against their will without adequate justification. Conscience and love is all very well, as long as they drive the more specific guidelines I outlined. I went into this in more detail in another recent thread.
This is the ethic I think Jesus taught, and the reason that it exists in "secular" society

No it is not the reason - versions of such an ethic arose in many, maybe most cultures, way before Christianity.

Quote:

Do you care to provide the thread so I can read it?

See this thread:

What is 'Immoral Behavior'?

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Christian principles grew out of tribal taboos and ideas, which did include some of the more obvious natural 'wrongs', such as murder and theft. But it added a whole lot of crap connected with religious observance, and sexual hangups, that has take centuries to wind back in modern societies, insofar as it has been.
If anything, Christianity removed religious observance. And to what sexual hangups are you referring?

Removed 'religious observance"?? Are you joking??

Sexual hangups about any sexual activity outside marriage and strictly for procreation, as I referred to above.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Womens' rights have had to fought for in the teeth of opposition from many religious authorities, as well as other interests. Even the use of anaesthetics to relieve the pain of childbirth has been objected to by some people inspired by scripture.
I'd agree with you on this.
BobSpence1 wrote:

Some prominent established churches actually ran slave plantations.
'Morality' is the biggest negative for religion.
I have no problem accepting the fact that religion has abused morality, but I don't know that it is "negative" for religion. Indicting the whole of religion because of this is a genetic fallacy.

Have you not heard of the 'problem of evil/ Look it up.

EDIT: Almost forget to mention that the thing about not 'coveting' in the Ten Commandments is a thought crime, as per Orwell's 1984.

Didn't Jesus say something about people having bad thoughts being just as guilty as if they committed the act, at least in some cases?

And of course the big one, damning people for honestly not accepting Him or for hating him makes God a total asshole.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology

Posted on: April 25, 2011 - 8:58am #103

BobSpence

Posts: 5939

Joined: 2006-02-14

Offline

Here is a link to podcast of

Here is a link to podcast of a presentation with a lot of relevance to this thread:

feed://feeds.feedburner.com/reasonabledoubts.Msxh

One very interesting observation is that for a number of things that are religiously approved behaviour, self-reporting may show significant correlation between religiosity and frequency of that behaviour, but the actual observed frequency of that behaviour shows little or no correlation.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology

Posted on: April 25, 2011 - 9:27am #104

Wowzers1

Posts: 312

Joined: 2011-04-03

Offline

BobSpence1 wrote:So don't

BobSpence1 wrote:

So don't try and make this lame cop-out. In most societies today, we are way better than ideas of that time. The only concern for God was freeing his 'chosen people' from slavery, no concern with saying slavery, owning another person, was wrong in principle.

"may", and "may" are permissive, not mandatory... not nearly as strong as "must" concerning relatives. And even here, they are saying you cannot separate families. Again, you left out John 8 concerning the truth setting one free and Romans 6, the motif of God delivering one from slavery and adopting them as sons and daughters. The attitude is permissible and generally, so it seems, negative...

Also in Leviticus 25 Israelite slaves are to be set free in the year of Jubilee.

And slave trade is condemned in 1 Timothy 1:10

I don't care if you think this is a "Lame cop-out", because the facts are what they are not matter what spin you want to put on

BobSpence1 wrote:

Property - its only a sin in this verse if the 'damsel' is 'betrothed'. Of course they didn't even have a word for 'rape', because they didn't see it as a real sin against a full person. That is part of what makes the Biblical ideas around abuse of woman totally fucked up.

I don't know how familiar you are with Hebrew, but the translation of that to "rape" is dubious at best, as it can take on the meaning of "seduction" among others. That, and given the fact that if they be "discovered" or "found out" in verse 28 would seem to suggest that this was not necessarily forced sex. That, and given that Jesus says to lust after another woman in one's heart is a sin, how much more so would it be for a man to attack and sexually assault her? Given these things, I have not reason to think that this particular text or any other text is encouraging or even allowing for such henious acts. Sure, you can write my understanding of as a "lame cop-out" but you must show that your selective interpretation of these texts is the only or at least the best interpretation of the text.

I have no problem calling the the second scenario (vs 25-27) rape, as it says that the woman is not guilty of any crime. This is somewhat different from the third and first scenario described in Deuteronomy 22. The first and third seem consensual, the second seems to be a violation of the will of the woman.

BobSpence1 wrote:

BTW, who was the mother of the descendants of Cain?? You aren't seriously treating that stuff as historical??

Whether or not it is historical is not the issue... what is teaches is.

BobSpence1 wrote:

Polygamy is not a problem if the women are openly happy to accept the set-up. True morality is not dependant on the pronouncements of some authority figure, that would be simply a legal system.
Disobedience to an authority figure, per se, is not wrong. Otherwise we would have let Hitler's deputies off when they pleaded that they 'were just following orders'. So the Garden of Eden story is not a worthy 'moral' account. The evil is compounded by visiting the consequences of the 'transgression' on all their descendants.

So if a women were openly happy with rape, would that make it acceptable?

BobSpence1 wrote:

Sexual activity outside of marriage and/or not for the purposes of procreation is NOT 'misconduct', in a real moral framework. That is part of the sexual hangup of Christianity. As long as the act is consensual, and ideally if precautions against fertilization are taken, where applicable.

So...you're okay with teenagers having sex? Or pedophilia? Or things such as that? Roman society found such things to be quote acceptable. Does that make them right?

BobSpence1 wrote:

No it is not the reason - versions of such an ethic arose in many, maybe most cultures, way before Christianity.

I'm talking about in Western cultures, not every culture.

BobSpence1 wrote:

What is 'Immoral Behavior'?

Thx

BobSpence1 wrote:

Removed 'religious observance"?? Are you joking??

What religious observances did Jesus institute? Two that I know of -- baptism and the eucharist, and these were symbolic and not necessary for anything other than as reminders. This is a far cry for the religious practices prescribed from the OT Levitical law or any other religion that I know about.

BobSpence1 wrote:

Have you not heard of the 'problem of evil/ Look it up.

I have read about the problem of evil in depth. What does that have to do with the issue at hand?

BobSpence1 wrote:

EDIT: Almost forget to mention that the thing about not 'coveting' in the Ten Commandments is a thought crime, as per Orwell's 1984.
Didn't Jesus say something about people having bad thoughts being just as guilty as if they committed the act, at least in some cases?
And of course the big one, damning people for honestly not accepting Him or for hating him makes God a total asshole.

Whatever you feel about him, I don't think it is grounded. Granted, there were a lot of people who were offended by him for one reason or another, but I have no reason to think it was because he did anything wrong.

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal

Posted on: April 25, 2011 - 1:57pm #105

BobSpence

Posts: 5939

Joined: 2006-02-14

Offline

Wowzers1 wrote:BobSpence1

Wowzers1 wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
So don't try and make this lame cop-out. In most societies today, we are way better than ideas of that time. The only concern for God was freeing his 'chosen people' from slavery, no concern with saying slavery, owning another person, was wrong in principle.
"may", and "may" are permissive, not mandatory... not nearly as strong as "must" concerning relatives. And even here, they are saying you cannot separate families. Again, you left out John 8 concerning the truth setting one free and Romans 6, the motif of God delivering one from slavery and adopting them as sons and daughters. The attitude is permissible and generally, so it seems, negative...
Also in Leviticus 25 Israelite slaves are to be set free in the year of Jubilee.
And slave trade is condemned in 1 Timothy 1:10
I don't care if you think this is a "Lame cop-out", because the facts are what they are not matter what spin you want to put on

The only part of that response which actually may point to an actual condemnation of slavery is from Timothy, but since the crucial word can mean, from

http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=405

Quote:

a slave-dealer, kidnapper, man-stealer
a. of one who unjustly reduces free men to slavery
b. of one who steals the slaves of others and sells them

and b is more consistent with the tone of the passage and with the other references to slavery in the text, I don't think you have proven your case.

And of course, as you would expect, I certainly see you as the one putting a spin on the ambiguous text of the Bible - not 'facts'.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
Property - its only a sin in this verse if the 'damsel' is 'betrothed'. Of course they didn't even have a word for 'rape', because they didn't see it as a real sin against a full person. That is part of what makes the Biblical ideas around abuse of woman totally fucked up.
I don't know how familiar you are with Hebrew, but the translation of that to "rape" is dubious at best, as it can take on the meaning of "seduction" among others. That, and given the fact that if they be "discovered" or "found out" in verse 28 would seem to suggest that this was not necessarily forced sex. That, and given that Jesus says to lust after another woman in one's heart is a sin, how much more so would it be for a man to attack and sexually assault her? Given these things, I have not reason to think that this particular text or any other text is encouraging or even allowing for such henious acts. Sure, you can write my understanding of as a "lame cop-out" but you must show that your selective interpretation of these texts is the only or at least the best interpretation of the text.
I have no problem calling the the second scenario (vs 25-27) rape, as it says that the woman is not guilty of any crime. This is somewhat different from the third and first scenario described in Deuteronomy 22. The first and third seem consensual, the second seems to be a violation of the will of the woman.

You are straining at a gnat to show this as condemning forced sex.

And the quote from Jesus does not condemn rape, it is another sick example of Jesus defining a 'thought crime', and is therefore is reason to condemn him.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
BTW, who was the mother of the descendants of Cain?? You aren't seriously treating that stuff as historical??
Whether or not it is historical is not the issue... what is teaches is.

And that is the problem. SInce pretty much every reference to women, especially in the OT, all has women being regarded as property, and fails to say anywherr that this is wrong, what it ends up 'teaching' us is that God is ok with that. Sick.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Polygamy is not a problem if the women are openly happy to accept the set-up. True morality is not dependant on the pronouncements of some authority figure, that would be simply a legal system.
Disobedience to an authority figure, per se, is not wrong. Otherwise we would have let Hitler's deputies off when they pleaded that they 'were just following orders'. So the Garden of Eden story is not a worthy 'moral' account. The evil is compounded by visiting the consequences of the 'transgression' on all their descendants.
So if a women were openly happy with rape, would that make it acceptable?

If a woman was openly happy with the act, it would not be rape!!

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
Sexual activity outside of marriage and/or not for the purposes of procreation is NOT 'misconduct', in a real moral framework. That is part of the sexual hangup of Christianity. As long as the act is consensual, and ideally if precautions against fertilization are taken, where applicable.
So...you're okay with teenagers having sex? Or pedophilia? Or things such as that? Roman society found such things to be quote acceptable. Does that make them right?

Sure, if it is consensual, and they take precautions against having a child or spreading STD's.

Pedophilia is wrong to the extent that the child is not mature enough to be properly considered to have consented to the act.

It means that they are not wrong by my book. IOW if no actual harm is being done and there is no element of force or deception.

Your personal reaction to the acts is not an objective reason to treat it as 'wrong'.

This is clearly the crucial distinction between our perception of morality, and it is recognized in psychology. It is not derived from religion, but it strongly correlates with religious and a general liberal/conservative disposition.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
No it is not the reason - versions of such an ethic arose in many, maybe most cultures, way before Christianity.
I'm talking about in Western cultures, not every culture.

So? My point is that it did not come from a 'God' figure, it is something that can occur to anyone giving the matter appropriate thought.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

What is 'Immoral Behavior'?
Thx
BobSpence1 wrote:
Removed 'religious observance"?? Are you joking??
What religious observances did Jesus institute? Two that I know of -- baptism and the eucharist, and these were symbolic and not necessary for anything other than as reminders. This is a far cry for the religious practices prescribed from the OT Levitical law or any other religion that I know about.

This is just quibbling over semantics.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Have you not heard of the 'problem of evil'. Look it up.
I have read about the problem of evil in depth. What does that have to do with the issue at hand?

Everything, when you are trying to claim that your God has any claim to being 'good' and a 'source' or reference point for morality.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

EDIT: Almost forget to mention that the thing about not 'coveting' in the Ten Commandments is a thought crime, as per Orwell's 1984.
Didn't Jesus say something about people having bad thoughts being just as guilty as if they committed the act, at least in some cases?
And of course the big one, damning people for honestly not accepting Him or for hating him makes God a total asshole.
Whatever you feel about him, I don't think it is grounded. Granted, there were a lot of people who were offended by him for one reason or another, but I have no reason to think it was because he did anything wrong.

Of course you don't don't think it is 'grounded' - you come at this stuff from a different angle, different gut reactions to various actions, and a different set of basic assumptions about many things.

Moral issues are inherently subjective to a significant extent, which is why I believe they should be based on something we can actually observe and measure, namely our own inherent reactions and wants and desires, and indicators of personal and societal well-being, not on the fantasies of religion, and its use to encode the moral attitudes of an older and very different culture.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology

Posted on: April 25, 2011 - 10:34pm #106

Wowzers1

Posts: 312

Joined: 2011-04-03

Offline

BobSpence1 wrote:The only

BobSpence1 wrote:

The only part of that response which actually may point to an actual condemnation of slavery is from Timothy, but since the crucial word can mean, from
a slave-dealer, kidnapper, man-stealer
a. of one who unjustly reduces free men to slavery
b. of one who steals the slaves of others and sells them
and b is more consistent with the tone of the passage and with the other references to slavery in the text, I don't think you have proven your case.
And of course, as you would expect, I certainly see you as the one putting a spin on the ambiguous text of the Bible - not 'facts'.

My problem is that you were not taking into the whole account of the Bible, which I was trying to do at a high level. Whether you not agree with me is not really my contention, rather that I do not believe the Bible supports slavery and I have reason to think it does not too. You don't take into account the other facts I mentioned concerning John 8 and Romans 6 too.

BobSpence1 wrote:

You are straining at a gnat to show this as condemning forced sex.
And the quote from Jesus does not condemn rape, it is another sick example of Jesus defining a 'thought crime', and is therefore is reason to condemn him.

"Straining at gnats"is hardly a explanation of how I'm doing this. I don't believe that to be the case. My contention with Jesus condemning rape with Jesus is that if thinking lustfully is sin, how much more so is actually acting on it? Regardless of whether you think are opposed to "thought crimes" or not, committing sexual sin in one's mind would preempt a whole host of such things: rape, adultery, pornography, pedophilia, etc.

BobSpence1 wrote:

And that is the problem. SInce pretty much every reference to women, especially in the OT, all has women being regarded as property, and fails to say anywherr that this is wrong, what it ends up 'teaching' us is that God is ok with that. Sick.

But you're hung up on woman being "property" when I don't think that's what it's saying nor do I think you have good reason to believe that either.

BobSpence1 wrote:

If a woman was openly happy with the act, it would not be rape!!

That's not what I asked... I asked if they were okay with it, even as a henious crime. Suppose they thought women that were raped deserved it or something like that. The reason I ask is because "happiness" does not seem a good way of determining what is morally right.

BobSpence1 wrote:

Sure, if it is consensual, and they take precautions against having a child or spreading STD's.

I see...

BobSpence1 wrote:

Pedophilia is wrong to the extent that the child is not mature enough to be properly considered to have consented to the act.
It means that they are not wrong by my book. IOW if no actual harm is being done and there is no element of force or deception.
Your personal reaction to the acts is not an objective reason to treat it as 'wrong'.
This is clearly the crucial distinction between our perception of morality, and it is recognized in psychology. It is not derived from religion, but it strongly correlates with religious and a general liberal/conservative disposition.

It does not have to be derived from religion, but maintaining it without some sort of normative grounds seems to be a slippery slope.

BobSpence1 wrote:

So? My point is that it did not come from a 'God' figure, it is something that can occur to anyone giving the matter appropriate thought.

Whether or not it came from God is not my point either, rather that the ethic in Western society, so it seems, grew out of Christian thought.

BobSpence1 wrote:

This is just quibbling over semantics.

"Quibbling over semantics" in what respects? The book of Hebrews, parts of Romans, Galatians, and 1 Corinthians deal with the issues of religious observances and how Jesus fulfilled the OT requirements of the Law concerning priests, sacrifices, temples, circumcision, etc. so that the followers of God did not have to worry about such things. What James calls "pure religion" sounds to me like social justice, not offering sacrifices and doing rights and rituals. In fact, even the OT condemns religion such as this. God's desire was never for sacrifices, temples, and what not -- These things were representative of what was real, namely Jesus.

BobSpence1 wrote:

Everything, when you are trying to claim that your God has any claim to being 'good' and a 'source' or reference point for morality.

I don't think the "Problem" of Evil is as much a problem as some make it out to be.

BobSpence1 wrote:

Of course you don't don't think it is 'grounded' - you come at this stuff from a different angle, different gut reactions to various actions, and a different set of basic assumptions about many things.
Moral issues are inherently subjective to a significant extent, which is why I believe they should be based on something we can actually observe and measure, namely our own inherent reactions and wants and desires, and indicators of personal and societal well-being, not on the fantasies of religion, and its use to encode the moral attitudes of an older and very different culture.

I think in terms of normative ethics and the particulars of situational ethics. A command like "though shalt not bear false witness" and then harboring refugees from a ruthless governments and lying about them to me is such a case. I believe that this is what Jesus taught, and even he dealt with situational ethics to expose the hypocrisy of maintaining the letter of the law when it was better to do something else.

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal

Posted on: April 26, 2011 - 3:27am #107

BobSpence

Posts: 5939

Joined: 2006-02-14

Offline

Any world-view or system of

Any world-view or system of ethics based on the unfounded assumption that there was a person named Jesus who was a representative of an unprovable supernatural entity, has about the most slippery, subjective 'basis' around.

You are really seem to be doing a lot of retro-fitting of enlightened ethics to the somewhat poorly thought-through ideas in the Bible.

But I suppose that was already being done as later versions of the writings were tweaked...

I know you will not agree with this, but that is how I see it.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology

Posted on: April 26, 2011 - 7:49am #108

butterbattle

Posts: 3945

Joined: 2008-09-12

Offline

Wowzers1 wrote: I was

Wowzers1 wrote:

I was extending the logic of this statement, saying that it is not true... religion that run against the grain of society would be extinct, but its not... but nor does religion reflect the values from society either.

Okay, sure, just keep asserting that. If you assert it enough times, it'll become true.

Wowzers1 wrote:

So have you gone through every religion in the world, looked at what they teach, and tossed them out accordingly?

Lol, of course not. I don't subscribe to any religion in principle because religions hold to specific beliefs and practices dogmatically. Of course, many of them teach things that are true, but that is irrelevant. If every belief in a religion were true, it wouldn't need to be a religion; truth is perpetuated by the very fact that it is the truth. I would simply hold those beliefs as they conform to reality, not as a religion.

Wowzers1 wrote:

In western societies, the battle is, generally speaking, theism vs atheism, but Christianity vs Atheism.

Yes, I agree. But, just to see if you can admit that you're wrong about anything, do you admit that it's wrong to equate Christianity with theism?

Wowzers1 wrote:

Spinning it to make something sound bad does not change the facts of the matter.

Nothing I said was untrue, so I don't have to spin it. It already is bad. It is your job to try to spin it to make it not sound bad.

Bible wrote:

"And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?
Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD. 31:17
Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."" Numbers 31:15-18

Of course, it still looks bad no matter how hard you try.

Well now, I've gotten into a long discussion with you again. Ah well.

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

Posted on: April 28, 2011 - 2:56am #109

Wowzers1

Posts: 312

Joined: 2011-04-03

Offline

butterbattle wrote:Okay,

butterbattle wrote:

Okay, sure, just keep asserting that. If you assert it enough times, it'll become true.

You still haven't shown me how I'm miss applying the logic. Insofar as I can tell, it's just bad.

butterbattle wrote:

Lol, of course not. I don't subscribe to any religion in principle because religions hold to specific beliefs and practices dogmatically. Of course, many of them teach things that are true, but that is irrelevant. If every belief in a religion were true, it wouldn't need to be a religion; truth is perpetuated by the very fact that it is the truth. I would simply hold those beliefs as they conform to reality, not as a religion.

So prima facie, you think religions are false... No matter what the religion is you reject it for this reason then? But that's not rejecting religions because of the truth of religion, rather than some belief about the nature of religion.

butterbattle wrote:

Yes, I agree. But, just to see if you can admit that you're wrong about anything, do you admit that it's wrong to equate Christianity with theism?

It is wrong to equate Christianity with theism... yes. If I did this (and I probably did) I was wrong to do so.

butterbattle wrote:

Nothing I said was untrue, so I don't have to spin it. It already is bad. It is your job to try to spin it to make it not sound bad.
Bible wrote:
"And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?
Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD. 31:17
Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."" Numbers 31:15-18

Of course, it still looks bad no matter how hard you try.

So...what's your problem with this?

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal

Posted on: April 28, 2011 - 3:48am #110

Atheistextremist

Posts: 5134

Joined: 2009-09-17

Offline

It's pleasing

Wowzers1 wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
The only part of that response which actually may point to an actual condemnation of slavery is from Timothy, but since the crucial word can mean, from
a slave-dealer, kidnapper, man-stealer
a. of one who unjustly reduces free men to slavery
b. of one who steals the slaves of others and sells them
and b is more consistent with the tone of the passage and with the other references to slavery in the text, I don't think you have proven your case.
And of course, as you would expect, I certainly see you as the one putting a spin on the ambiguous text of the Bible - not 'facts'.
My problem is that you were not taking into the whole account of the Bible, which I was trying to do at a high level. Whether you not agree with me is not really my contention, rather that I do not believe the Bible supports slavery and I have reason to think it does not too. You don't take into account the other facts I mentioned concerning John 8 and Romans 6 too.
BobSpence1 wrote:
You are straining at a gnat to show this as condemning forced sex.
And the quote from Jesus does not condemn rape, it is another sick example of Jesus defining a 'thought crime', and is therefore is reason to condemn him.
"Straining at gnats"is hardly a explanation of how I'm doing this. I don't believe that to be the case. My contention with Jesus condemning rape with Jesus is that if thinking lustfully is sin, how much more so is actually acting on it? Regardless of whether you think are opposed to "thought crimes" or not, committing sexual sin in one's mind would preempt a whole host of such things: rape, adultery, pornography, pedophilia, etc.
BobSpence1 wrote:

And that is the problem. SInce pretty much every reference to women, especially in the OT, all has women being regarded as property, and fails to say anywherr that this is wrong, what it ends up 'teaching' us is that God is ok with that. Sick.
But you're hung up on woman being "property" when I don't think that's what it's saying nor do I think you have good reason to believe that either.
BobSpence1 wrote:
If a woman was openly happy with the act, it would not be rape!!
That's not what I asked... I asked if they were okay with it, even as a henious crime. Suppose they thought women that were raped deserved it or something like that. The reason I ask is because "happiness" does not seem a good way of determining what is morally right.
BobSpence1 wrote:
Sure, if it is consensual, and they take precautions against having a child or spreading STD's.
I see...
BobSpence1 wrote:

Pedophilia is wrong to the extent that the child is not mature enough to be properly considered to have consented to the act.
It means that they are not wrong by my book. IOW if no actual harm is being done and there is no element of force or deception.
Your personal reaction to the acts is not an objective reason to treat it as 'wrong'.
This is clearly the crucial distinction between our perception of morality, and it is recognized in psychology. It is not derived from religion, but it strongly correlates with religious and a general liberal/conservative disposition.
It does not have to be derived from religion, but maintaining it without some sort of normative grounds seems to be a slippery slope.
BobSpence1 wrote:
So? My point is that it did not come from a 'God' figure, it is something that can occur to anyone giving the matter appropriate thought.
Whether or not it came from God is not my point either, rather that the ethic in Western society, so it seems, grew out of Christian thought.
BobSpence1 wrote:
This is just quibbling over semantics.
"Quibbling over semantics" in what respects? The book of Hebrews, parts of Romans, Galatians, and 1 Corinthians deal with the issues of religious observances and how Jesus fulfilled the OT requirements of the Law concerning priests, sacrifices, temples, circumcision, etc. so that the followers of God did not have to worry about such things. What James calls "pure religion" sounds to me like social justice, not offering sacrifices and doing rights and rituals. In fact, even the OT condemns religion such as this. God's desire was never for sacrifices, temples, and what not -- These things were representative of what was real, namely Jesus.
BobSpence1 wrote:
Everything, when you are trying to claim that your God has any claim to being 'good' and a 'source' or reference point for morality.
I don't think the "Problem" of Evil is as much a problem as some make it out to be.
BobSpence1 wrote:
Of course you don't don't think it is 'grounded' - you come at this stuff from a different angle, different gut reactions to various actions, and a different set of basic assumptions about many things.
Moral issues are inherently subjective to a significant extent, which is why I believe they should be based on something we can actually observe and measure, namely our own inherent reactions and wants and desires, and indicators of personal and societal well-being, not on the fantasies of religion, and its use to encode the moral attitudes of an older and very different culture.
I think in terms of normative ethics and the particulars of situational ethics. A command like "though shalt not bear false witness" and then harboring refugees from a ruthless governments and lying about them to me is such a case. I believe that this is what Jesus taught, and even he dealt with situational ethics to expose the hypocrisy of maintaining the letter of the law when it was better to do something else.

you choose an enlightened interpretation of the bible but I can't see how you are able to entirely sanitize it of the unsavoury things it reflects about the cultures from which it sprang.

Your interpretation says nice things about you but nothing assuredly true about biblical times, which were demonstrably lacking in personal freedom and social enlightenment.

Parts of the message of jesus resonate because of the contrast between his teachings and reality as it then was.

It would have been an ugly, dangerous, painful and smelly time to be alive.

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

Posted on: April 28, 2011 - 5:44am #111

Wowzers1

Posts: 312

Joined: 2011-04-03

Offline

Atheistextremist wrote:you

Atheistextremist wrote:

you choose an enlightened interpretation of the bible but I can't see how you are able to entirely sanitize it of the unsavoury things it reflects about the cultures from which it sprang.
Your interpretation says nice things about you but nothing assuredly true about biblical times, which were demonstrably lacking in personal freedom and social enlightenment.
Parts of the message of jesus resonate because of the contrast between his teachings and reality as it then was.
It would have been an ugly, dangerous, painful and smelly time to be alive.

I'm not trying to "sanitize" anything, rather trying to understand the OT in light of the rest of the Bible, particularly the NT. Now, I don't presume to think that my understanding of the bible is immutable either -- I could be wrong about too.

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal

Posted on: April 28, 2011 - 7:34am #112

butterbattle

Posts: 3945

Joined: 2008-09-12

Offline

Wowzers1 wrote:You still

Wowzers1 wrote:

You still haven't shown me how I'm miss applying the logic. Insofar as I can tell, it's just bad.

Lol, there was no argument, so obviously there was no logic applied. You just made assertions.

Wowzers1 wrote:

So prima facie, you think religions are false... No matter what the religion is you reject it for this reason then? But that's not rejecting religions because of the truth of religion, rather than some belief about the nature of religion.

Right. Some beliefs in some religions are obviously true, and I would subscribe to them because they conform to reality. I am opposed to the concept of a religion itself, as subscribing to one implies closed-mindedness, by definition.

Concerning their positive supernatural claims, I simply don't believe until I am provided with reason and evidence for believing.

Wowzers1 wrote:

It is wrong to equate Christianity with theism... yes. If I did this (and I probably did) I was wrong to do so.

Okay.

Bible wrote:

"And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?
Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD. 31:17
Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."" Numbers 31:15-18

Wowzers1 wrote:

So...what's your problem with this?

Eh.....are you serious?

Posted on: April 28, 2011 - 8:06am #113

Wowzers1

Posts: 312

Joined: 2011-04-03

Offline

butterbattle wrote:Lol,

butterbattle wrote:

Lol, there was no argument, so obviously there was no logic applied. You just made assertions.

Huh? I was responding to this statement:

butterbattle wrote:

Religions are comprised of the people of the society; for the most part, religions absorbs their values from the society, not the other way around. A religion which possessed values that were too inconsistent with the populace would evolve or become weak and possibly extinct.

Now...You say, I just made an assertion... no... rather I made an observation concerning the nature of religion in light of this statement that invalidated the statement... You offer no defense. Either you have no defense and are not admitting you're wrong, or you are withholding it. I tend to think it is the former and you are just trying to downplay it.

butterbattle wrote:

Right. Some beliefs in some religions are obviously true, and I would subscribe to them because they conform to reality. I am opposed to the concept of a religion itself, as subscribing to one implies closed-mindedness, by definition.

I think you're wrong in saying that it "implies closed-mindedness, by definition". To what definition are you subscribing? On the contrary, I think that not being open to religion because of some a priori idea concerning religion closed-mindedness.

butterbattle wrote:

Concerning their positive supernatural claims, I simply don't believe until I am provided with reason and evidence for believing.

I'm the same way.

butterbattle wrote:

Eh.....are you serious?

I'm not going to assume anything on your behalf...

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal

Posted on: April 28, 2011 - 8:49am #114

robj101

Posts: 2481

Joined: 2010-02-20

Offline

All wowzer is trying to say

All wowzer is trying to say here is that if you want slavery then the bible works, if you don't want slavery the bible works. It's just more interpretation based on desire, I dunno why you guys are arguing with him on this point.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin

Posted on: April 28, 2011 - 9:18am #115

Wowzers1

Posts: 312

Joined: 2011-04-03

Offline

robj101 wrote:All wowzer is

robj101 wrote:

All wowzer is trying to say here is that if you want slavery then the bible works, if you don't want slavery the bible works. It's just more interpretation based on desire, I dunno why you guys are arguing with him on this point.

I'm arguing that I don't believe that the Bible advocates slavery... While it does not explicitly forbid owning slaves, the general attitude towards slavery leans towards emancipation rather than subjugation.

But at the same time, I'm not so bullheaded to think that my understanding is without error either.

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal

Posted on: April 28, 2011 - 11:51am #116

Posts: 3330

Joined: 2007-01-05

Offline

Wowzers1 wrote:robj101

Wowzers1 wrote:

robj101 wrote:
All wowzer is trying to say here is that if you want slavery then the bible works, if you don't want slavery the bible works. It's just more interpretation based on desire, I dunno why you guys are arguing with him on this point.
I'm arguing that I don't believe that the Bible advocates slavery... While it does not explicitly forbid owning slaves, the general attitude towards slavery leans towards emancipation rather than subjugation.
But at the same time, I'm not so bullheaded to think that my understanding is without error either.

When the bible says you should not beat your slaves to death - doesn't that imply a moderate amount of beating is okay? And how is that emancipation?

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.

Posted on: April 28, 2011 - 3:43pm #117

redneF

Posts: 1970

Joined: 2011-01-04

Offline

cj wrote:Wowzers1

cj wrote:

Wowzers1 wrote:
robj101 wrote:
All wowzer is trying to say here is that if you want slavery then the bible works, if you don't want slavery the bible works. It's just more interpretation based on desire, I dunno why you guys are arguing with him on this point.
I'm arguing that I don't believe that the Bible advocates slavery... While it does not explicitly forbid owning slaves, the general attitude towards slavery leans towards emancipation rather than subjugation.
But at the same time, I'm not so bullheaded to think that my understanding is without error either.

When the bible says you should not beat your slaves to death - doesn't that imply a moderate amount of beating is okay? And how is that emancipation?

Arguing with apologists is only useful to illustrate just how elastic 'moral' judgments are, even to religious people, so there's no basis for them to posit that religions are a better template for social guidelines, wholly apart from their positions on how the universe was formed, or the origins of biological life, which is why they're just annoying pests.

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris

Posted on: April 28, 2011 - 4:12pm #118

Brian37

Posts: 16433

Joined: 2006-02-14

Offline

Wowzers1

Wowzers1 wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

you choose an enlightened interpretation of the bible but I can't see how you are able to entirely sanitize it of the unsavoury things it reflects about the cultures from which it sprang.
Your interpretation says nice things about you but nothing assuredly true about biblical times, which were demonstrably lacking in personal freedom and social enlightenment.
Parts of the message of jesus resonate because of the contrast between his teachings and reality as it then was.
It would have been an ugly, dangerous, painful and smelly time to be alive.
I'm not trying to "sanitize" anything, rather trying to understand the OT in light of the rest of the Bible, particularly the NT. Now, I don't presume to think that my understanding of the bible is immutable either -- I could be wrong about too.

I hope you are sanitizing it, the ones who don't sanitize their holy books slam planes into buildings or shoot abortion doctors.

And it is precisely because you admit here "I could be wrong", that you sanitize it.

You are wrong, because to take the bible literally word for word you would have to be a monster, like the god depicted in the bible.

Inept would be a kind description if I were to give such a character the benefit of the doubt. This critter suposedly sets up the game, then watches for millinia knowing he could, if he wanted to, stop all the violence and suffering humanity has always been under, and did not have to set the game up that way, then blames his monopoly pieces for the game he set up.

But it goes way beyond that, he watches infanticide with folded arms, commits genocide himself, and condones hostage taking by his chosen people after war.

If a prisoner convicted of being a cereal killer said to the jury, "I promise not to do that again", would you let him go?

Here is how you are trying to defend the bible:

1. Part 1, Be a good Hebrew and no one gets hurt"(hurts them himself, or condones the harm of non-Hebrews, and the hostage taking of non Hebrews, with his blessing)

2. Part 2, sorry I beat the shit out of you so much, here, I'll kill myself to prove my love for you, I wont hit you anymore as long as you kiss my ass"

3. Part 3, Thats not working, I'll just take my fans and throw everyone else in the trash heap where I'll beat the shit out of them forever.

We have heard this argument before. "The New Testament is what matters" FAILING to look at the failure to prevent the violence before and on top of that condoning it. The after the supposed "I wont do that again" at the end of the book, he goes right back to beating the shit out of dissenters, even if their only crime is not wanting to follow him.

This is not the sign of a rational person. This is a stalker/abusive spouse mentality.

Take your rose colored glasses off. STRICTLY as a literary character, the god of the bible reads like a tyrant who throws a tantrum in his sandbox when he cant arrange his army men the way he wants, even though he has the power to.

The only way you can swallow this crap is to sanitize it and cherry pick it.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog

Posted on: April 28, 2011 - 4:13pm #119

BobSpence

Posts: 5939

Joined: 2006-02-14

Offline

The Bible conveys the

The Bible conveys the understanding that in many/most cases, slaves would prefer not to be slaves, so emancipation is positive action in that sense.

But it does not see anything intrinsically wrong with someone effectively owning another person, with total power and legal right to do whatever they wish with them. It does make recommendations as to how one should treat your slaves, of course, and considers some moral limits.

We have progressed way beyond this. At least officially, modern democratic societies have an ideal of personal freedom and equality, contrary to the attitudes of that time.

The Bible is a deeply flawed 'guide' to moral behavior.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology

Posted on: April 28, 2011 - 11:43pm #120

Wowzers1

Posts: 312

Joined: 2011-04-03

Offline

BobSpence1 wrote:The Bible

BobSpence1 wrote:

The Bible conveys the understanding that in many/most cases, slaves would prefer not to be slaves, so emancipation is positive action in that sense.
But it does not see anything intrinsically wrong with someone effectively owning another person, with total power and legal right to do whatever they wish with them. It does make recommendations as to how one should treat your slaves, of course, and considers some moral limits.
We have progressed way beyond this. At least officially, modern democratic societies have an ideal of personal freedom and equality, contrary to the attitudes of that time.
The Bible is a deeply flawed 'guide' to moral behavior.

I'm inclined to disagree. What I think is certain is that we have "sanitized" it and called it something different although in principle it does not seem any different. And some of the things we call civil liberties do not seem to be progress at all..rather a step backwards.

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal

Posted on: April 28, 2011 - 11:53pm #121

Wowzers1

Posts: 312

Joined: 2011-04-03

Offline

Brian37 wrote:I hope you are

Brian37 wrote:

I hope you are sanitizing it, the ones who don't sanitize their holy books slam planes into buildings or shoot abortion doctors.

Genetic fallacies... shees....

Brian37 wrote:

And it is precisely because you admit here "I could be wrong", that you sanitize it.

So... I can only be "right" if I'm a fundy? Or are you that way because you're of the same sort for atheism?

Brian37 wrote:

You are wrong, because to take the bible literally word for word you would have to be a monster, like the god depicted in the bible.

You're assuming that I take it "word for word" or "literally" for me...

Brian37 wrote:

Inept would be a kind description if I were to give such a character the benefit of the doubt. This critter suposedly sets up the game, then watches for millinia knowing he could, if he wanted to, stop all the violence and suffering humanity has always been under, and did not have to set the game up that way, then blames his monopoly pieces for the game he set up.
But it goes way beyond that, he watches infanticide with folded arms, commits genocide himself, and condones hostage taking by his chosen people after war.
If a prisoner convicted of being a cereal killer said to the jury, "I promise not to do that again", would you let him go?
Here is how you are trying to defend the bible:
1. Part 1, Be a good Hebrew and no one gets hurt"(hurts them himself, or condones the harm of non-Hebrews, and the hostage taking of non Hebrews, with his blessing)
2. Part 2, sorry I beat the shit out of you so much, here, I'll kill myself to prove my love for you, I wont hit you anymore as long as you kiss my ass"
3. Part 3, Thats not working, I'll just take my fans and throw everyone else in the trash heap where I'll beat the shit out of them forever.
We have heard this argument before. "The New Testament is what matters" FAILING to look at the failure to prevent the violence before and on top of that condoning it. The after the supposed "I wont do that again" at the end of the book, he goes right back to beating the shit out of dissenters, even if their only crime is not wanting to follow him.
This is not the sign of a rational person. This is a stalker/abusive spouse mentality.
Take your rose colored glasses off. STRICTLY as a literary character, the god of the bible reads like a tyrant who throws a tantrum in his sandbox when he cant arrange his army men the way he wants, even though he has the power to.
The only way you can swallow this crap is to sanitize it and cherry pick it.

I feel you only come to your conclusion if you cherry pick. I've said that I'm trying to understand the whole of the Bible rather than focusing selected verses from the first 5 books of the Bible.

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal

Posted on: April 29, 2011 - 12:16am #122

Atheistextremist

Posts: 5134

Joined: 2009-09-17

Offline

Just as an aside, Wows,

how do you like the prose in the bible? I always thought a decent god would right in a fine, spare style, evoking powerful emotion with the resonance of his thinking.

Sadly, the bible is appallingly written. There are a few mildly lyrical sections but for the most part the inspiration of the lord leads to copy that's more than usually awful.

Except Revelations of course, which is a fine piece of writing, full of clarity.

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

Posted on: April 29, 2011 - 12:19am #123

Atheistextremist

Posts: 5134

Joined: 2009-09-17

Offline

This is obviously an assertion

Wowzers1 wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
The Bible conveys the understanding that in many/most cases, slaves would prefer not to be slaves, so emancipation is positive action in that sense.
But it does not see anything intrinsically wrong with someone effectively owning another person, with total power and legal right to do whatever they wish with them. It does make recommendations as to how one should treat your slaves, of course, and considers some moral limits.
We have progressed way beyond this. At least officially, modern democratic societies have an ideal of personal freedom and equality, contrary to the attitudes of that time.
The Bible is a deeply flawed 'guide' to moral behavior.
I'm inclined to disagree. What I think is certain is that we have "sanitized" it and called it something different although in principle it does not seem any different. And some of the things we call civil liberties do not seem to be progress at all..rather a step backwards.

Wows. What things are these civil liberties that you consider a step backwards? Be specific.

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

Posted on: April 29, 2011 - 1:24am #124

Wowzers1

Posts: 312

Joined: 2011-04-03

Offline

Atheistextremist wrote:how

Atheistextremist wrote:

how do you like the prose in the bible? I always thought a decent god would right in a fine, spare style, evoking powerful emotion with the resonance of his thinking.
Sadly, the bible is appallingly written. There are a few mildly lyrical sections but for the most part the inspiration of the lord leads to copy that's more than usually awful.
Except Revelations of course, which is a fine piece of writing, full of clarity.

Hebrew is highly poetic in voice and form, and the Hebrew style of writing looks more like poetry even when translated as prose then it does prose as English speakers know it. Hebrew has tenses (Actually, Hebrew doesn't really have a notion of "tense" per se) that communicate emphasis...these don't translate well because we don't have an analog to such things in English.

Revelation is a tough... It was written by a Jew whose second language was Greek...that and it is apocalyptic literature, full of symbolism and metaphors to obscure the message. That does not mean it is incomprehensible though.

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal

Posted on: April 29, 2011 - 1:44am #125

Wowzers1

Posts: 312

Joined: 2011-04-03

Offline

Atheistextremist wrote:Wows.

Atheistextremist wrote:

Wows. What things are these civil liberties that you consider a step backwards? Be specific.

We print pornography and make website for it, and call it "freedom of speech".

We acceptably fornicate and call it a "sexual revolution".

We kill unborn children and call it "choice".

We have easily accessible unsecured debt that people bond themselves to. This used to be called "slavery" but now we call it "credit".

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal

Posted on: April 29, 2011 - 2:59am #126

Atheistextremist

Posts: 5134

Joined: 2009-09-17

Offline

Wowzers1

Wowzers1 wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:
Wows. What things are these civil liberties that you consider a step backwards? Be specific.
We print pornography and make website for it, and call it "freedom of speech".
We acceptably fornicate and call it a "sexual revolution".
We kill unborn children and call it "choice".
We have easily accessible unsecured debt that people bond themselves to. This used to be called "slavery" but now we call it "credit".

I see...

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

Posted on: April 29, 2011 - 10:36am #127

BobSpence

Posts: 5939

Joined: 2006-02-14

Offline

Wowzers1

Wowzers1 wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:
Wows. What things are these civil liberties that you consider a step backwards? Be specific.
We print pornography and make website for it, and call it "freedom of speech".
We acceptably fornicate and call it a "sexual revolution".
We kill unborn children and call it "choice".
We have easily accessible unsecured debt that people bond themselves to. This used to be called "slavery" but now we call it "credit".

Allowing pornography is not a step backward. It is true that there can be something verging on 'exploitation' of some persons in the production of some of it, but that applies to many areas of human activity, including in many religious institutions and cults.

'Fornication' is definitely nothing to object to, except from the same sexually repressed/obsessed viewpoint that deeply imbues much of religion, especially the Abrahamic faiths.

If it is a real choice between the mother's life and the child's, there is no serious issue. If it is late term, and there is no serious threat to the mother's life , there is a problem there. Please be more specific. We still have actually made progress overall in regard to care for the unborn and teh very young over what existed, and was not explicitly criticised, in the Bible scenario. Indeed some infamous passages display an attitude to the unborn far more despicable than in modern liberal democracies, from which I exclude large swathes of US society.

There are issues with financial exploitation, true, but equating it to 'slavery' is a bit of a stretch. At most, it is perpetuating some of the practises that existed in biblical times that people still try to say we critics falsely think of as "slavery". Managed properly, ''credit" can be very useful - it is not intrinsically 'wrong', even if it can be the basis of some people getting themselves into difficulties, and other people making money off those problems.

Seems you have the same basic hangups about sex, abortion, and money-lending as was so common in the scripture writers.

There are passages in the Bible which describe activities with regard to the unborn and the young which betray an attitude that treats them as mere appendages or property of their parents, such as the slaughter of the first-born by God to punish the Egyptians, which is ironic in the light of the current attitude to abortion.

IOW, you are merely expressing typical conservative, unenlightened attitudes.

I would not claim we don't have our own hypocrisies, maybe some new ones, but that is part of the down-side of being real, evolved, intelligent life-forms, ie not 'perfect', or the 'creations' of an all-knowing and loving God.

Like susceptibility to Cancer being a trade-off with the ability to adapt (evolve) at all, including the ability to adapt to new forms of the disease organisms that the 'loving' God created so thoughtfully for us to enjoy.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology

Posted on: April 29, 2011 - 1:29pm #128

Kapkao

Posts: 4121

Joined: 2010-01-12

Offline

robj101 wrote:All wowzer is

robj101 wrote:

All wowzer is trying to say here is that if you want slavery then the bible works, if you don't want slavery the bible works. It's just more interpretation based on desire, I dunno why you guys are arguing with him on this point.

The Great Book also writes that (Chattal-related) slave and master both have obligations to each other. Not exactly a vehement condemnation of owning another person, lock stock and barrel. Granted, this isn't my original claim, and I'm not going to waste my time looking it up directly.

edit; damn, CJ beat me to it.

In short, it's the ultimate stack of cards. You draw one, you don't like it, you wait and draw another hand.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)

Posted on: April 29, 2011 - 2:39pm #129

Brian37

Posts: 16433

Joined: 2006-02-14

Offline

Wowzers1 wrote:Brian37

Wowzers1 wrote:

Brian37 wrote:
I hope you are sanitizing it, the ones who don't sanitize their holy books slam planes into buildings or shoot abortion doctors.
Genetic fallacies... shees....
Brian37 wrote:
And it is precisely because you admit here "I could be wrong", that you sanitize it.
So... I can only be "right" if I'm a fundy? Or are you that way because you're of the same sort for atheism?
Brian37 wrote:

You are wrong, because to take the bible literally word for word you would have to be a monster, like the god depicted in the bible.
You're assuming that I take it "word for word" or "literally" for me...
Brian37 wrote:

Inept would be a kind description if I were to give such a character the benefit of the doubt. This critter suposedly sets up the game, then watches for millinia knowing he could, if he wanted to, stop all the violence and suffering humanity has always been under, and did not have to set the game up that way, then blames his monopoly pieces for the game he set up.
But it goes way beyond that, he watches infanticide with folded arms, commits genocide himself, and condones hostage taking by his chosen people after war.
If a prisoner convicted of being a cereal killer said to the jury, "I promise not to do that again", would you let him go?
Here is how you are trying to defend the bible:
1. Part 1, Be a good Hebrew and no one gets hurt"(hurts them himself, or condones the harm of non-Hebrews, and the hostage taking of non Hebrews, with his blessing)
2. Part 2, sorry I beat the shit out of you so much, here, I'll kill myself to prove my love for you, I wont hit you anymore as long as you kiss my ass"
3. Part 3, Thats not working, I'll just take my fans and throw everyone else in the trash heap where I'll beat the shit out of them forever.
We have heard this argument before. "The New Testament is what matters" FAILING to look at the failure to prevent the violence before and on top of that condoning it. The after the supposed "I wont do that again" at the end of the book, he goes right back to beating the shit out of dissenters, even if their only crime is not wanting to follow him.
This is not the sign of a rational person. This is a stalker/abusive spouse mentality.
Take your rose colored glasses off. STRICTLY as a literary character, the god of the bible reads like a tyrant who throws a tantrum in his sandbox when he cant arrange his army men the way he wants, even though he has the power to.
The only way you can swallow this crap is to sanitize it and cherry pick it.
I feel you only come to your conclusion if you cherry pick. I've said that I'm trying to understand the whole of the Bible rather than focusing selected verses from the first 5 books of the Bible.

Don't get me wrong. Both you and fundies cherry pick, it's just that you cherry pick different things. They do see their god as an ass kicker who shoots first and never asks questions.

As the bible is written though, as a piece of literature only, they are closer to the truth of how that character is written, not you.

Both of you are wrong claiming such a critter exists. I don't care if you want to view him as Dirty Harry or Martin Luther King.

I am strictly viewing it as if I was watching a Hollywood movie or reading fictional drama book as a newspaper critic outsider. The fundies are not filtering out the ass kicking part of this god that IS described in the bible. You can ignore that all you want, but it is there.

Posted on: April 29, 2011 - 11:29pm #130

Wowzers1

Posts: 312

Joined: 2011-04-03

Offline

BobSpence1 wrote:Allowing

BobSpence1 wrote:

Allowing pornography is not a step backward. It is true that there can be something verging on 'exploitation' of some persons in the production of some of it, but that applies to many areas of human activity, including in many religious institutions and cults.

I'd agree that some cults are perverted. But I don't know that pornography is good in any context...

BobSpence1 wrote:

'Fornication' is definitely nothing to object to, except from the same sexually repressed/obsessed viewpoint that deeply imbues much of religion, especially the Abrahamic faiths.

I think this is the more fundamental problem behind pornography... And I don't think it is wrong to have "repressed" sexual desires, as this manifests self control.

BobSpence1 wrote:

If it is a real choice between the mother's life and the child's, there is no serious issue. If it is late term, and there is no serious threat to the mother's life , there is a problem there. Please be more specific. We still have actually made progress overall in regard to care for the unborn and teh very young over what existed, and was not explicitly criticised, in the Bible scenario. Indeed some infamous passages display an attitude to the unborn far more despicable than in modern liberal democracies, from which I exclude large swathes of US society.

In any case, I cannot think of a situation where it is good... even the extreme cases are not without problems, but these are often used to justify the entire enterprise. What gets my goat is that we allow for it and call it a "choice". I don't deny that medicine has made progress in treating the unborn, but to me that is a red herring to say the least.

BobSpence1 wrote:

There are issues with financial exploitation, true, but equating it to 'slavery' is a bit of a stretch. At most, it is perpetuating some of the practises that existed in biblical times that people still try to say we critics falsely think of as "slavery". Managed properly, ''credit" can be very useful - it is not intrinsically 'wrong', even if it can be the basis of some people getting themselves into difficulties, and other people making money off those problems.

My contention is with easily accessible unsecured debt, typically manifested in credit cards and the like. Don't hear me say credit is evil... Rather the practices of exploiting people by making high interest loans easily available and then creating a perpetual cycle of revolving debt... That, IMHO, is no different than "slavery".

BobSpence1 wrote:

Seems you have the same basic hangups about sex, abortion, and money-lending as was so common in the scripture writers.
There are passages in the Bible which describe activities with regard to the unborn and the young which betray an attitude that treats them as mere appendages or property of their parents, such as the slaughter of the first-born by God to punish the Egyptians, which is ironic in the light of the current attitude to abortion.

Many like to leave such things outside the context of judgment... And besides, it's another red herring.

BobSpence1 wrote:

IOW, you are merely expressing typical conservative, unenlightened attitudes.

Ad hominems don't serve you well, Bob.

BobSpence1 wrote:

I would not claim we don't have our own hypocrisies, maybe some new ones, but that is part of the down-side of being real, evolved, intelligent life-forms, ie not 'perfect', or the 'creations' of an all-knowing and loving God.
Like susceptibility to Cancer being a trade-off with the ability to adapt (evolve) at all, including the ability to adapt to new forms of the disease organisms that the 'loving' God created so thoughtfully for us to enjoy.

This is a red herring too...

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal

Posted on: April 29, 2011 - 11:33pm #131

BobSpence

Posts: 5939

Joined: 2006-02-14

Offline

Regarding "slavery" in

Regarding "slavery" in biblical times, it seems to me there was both bonded-servitude and what seems to be straight-out slavery as we would see it. This allows a lot of 'fudging' and dancing around the issue of the attitude to slavery in the bible.

What was condemned in one bible passage quoted was, in one translation, rendered as 'slave-traders', but in the KJV as 'man-stealers'. 'Manstealing' is consistent with an attitude that slavery is not wrong at all, rather that what was being condemned was stealing the property of another person, ie his slaves.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology

Posted on: April 30, 2011 - 3:16am #132

Wowzers1

Posts: 312

Joined: 2011-04-03

Offline

BobSpence1 wrote:Regarding

BobSpence1 wrote:

Regarding "slavery" in biblical times, it seems to me there was both bonded-servitude and what seems to be straight-out slavery as we would see it. This allows a lot of 'fudging' and dancing around the issue of the attitude to slavery in the bible.
What was condemned in one bible passage quoted was, in one translation, rendered as 'slave-traders', but in the KJV as 'man-stealers'. 'Manstealing' is consistent with an attitude that slavery is not wrong at all, rather that what was being condemned was stealing the property of another person, ie his slaves.

Man-stealer, kidnapper, slave-trader -- sounds to me like it's condemning human trafficking, slave or otherwise...

Both the Greek and Hebrew words for "slave" refer to any sort of servant -- bond-servant, slave, etc. What you call "dancing" really isn't dancing at all... the language is simply not that specific.

You have to ignore and so far have ignored the motifs of Jesus as an emancipator to get the notion that that the Bible supports it or is even optimistic towards slavery...

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal

Posted on: April 30, 2011 - 4:44am #133

Wowzers1

Posts: 312

Joined: 2011-04-03

Offline

Brian37 wrote:Don't get me

Brian37 wrote:

Don't get me wrong. Both you and fundies cherry pick, it's just that you cherry pick different things. They do see their god as an ass kicker who shoots first and never asks questions.

I was criticizing you for cherry picking... if you want to do the same sort of cherry picking you allege the fundamentalist do, by all means, go ahead. But how am I cherry picking if I am trying to understand the full scope of the Bible rather than focusing all or most of my attention on the first five books?

Brian37 wrote:

As the bible is written though, as a piece of literature only, they are closer to the truth of how that character is written, not you.

You think so, huh? I suppose you would have to agree with them more in order to reject it as you do. Otherwise you would not have a reason to do so.

Brian37 wrote:

Both of you are wrong claiming such a critter exists. I don't care if you want to view him as Dirty Harry or Martin Luther King.
I am strictly viewing it as if I was watching a Hollywood movie or reading fictional drama book as a newspaper critic outsider. The fundies are not filtering out the ass kicking part of this god that IS described in the bible. You can ignore that all you want, but it is there.

I'm not ignoring it, I'm trying to understand it. You are focusing seemingly solely on that, which would seem to me that you are cherry picking.

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal

Posted on: April 30, 2011 - 4:53am #134

BobSpence

Posts: 5939

Joined: 2006-02-14

Offline

Wowzers1 wrote:BobSpence1

Wowzers1 wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
Regarding "slavery" in biblical times, it seems to me there was both bonded-servitude and what seems to be straight-out slavery as we would see it. This allows a lot of 'fudging' and dancing around the issue of the attitude to slavery in the bible.
What was condemned in one bible passage quoted was, in one translation, rendered as 'slave-traders', but in the KJV as 'man-stealers'. 'Manstealing' is consistent with an attitude that slavery is not wrong at all, rather that what was being condemned was stealing the property of another person, ie his slaves.
Man-stealer, kidnapper, slave-trader -- sounds to me like it's condemning human trafficking, slave or otherwise...
Both the Greek and Hebrew words for "slave" refer to any sort of servant -- bond-servant, slave, etc. What you call "dancing" really isn't dancing at all... the language is simply not that specific.
You have to ignore and so far have ignored the motifs of Jesus as an emancipator to get the notion that that the Bible supports it or is even optimistic towards slavery...

There is a clear distinction between trading in something, and stealing it. You are blatantly refusing to admit that your interpretation probably wrong, when taken in context, something Theists continually accuse us of failing to do when we read the bible.

There are plenty of passages which suggest that both bonded servitude and straight-out slavery, with slaves as commodities to be traded.

I never intended to suggest, and I don't think I could be read as suggesting, that the bible actually supports, or is 'optimistic towards' (a strange phrase, in this context) slavery. It is its failure to condemn trading in persons as commodities which I find obnoxious, just as I think you would if it failed to condemn murder, even it it didn't actually support it.

Show me where Jesus is quoted as saying all slaves should be freed, unconditionally, and that the practice was wrong, and not just as something you are reading into the text.

It is irrelevant whether or not they had a specific word for the different forms of bondage. If they had no phrases, or forms of description to distinguish them, then that supports my assertion that bonded servants were not that different from traded slaves, in the eyes of the writers, which means they were very 'unenlightened', which is not what one would expect of people in some real communion with a loving and omniscient god, who wanted them to know true morality.

In my eyes, you are just digging yourself deeper into a hole trying to justify this stuff as embodying more than the ideas of a sub-set of society of that period.

There were already people in other cultures of the time and earlier who had come up with similar or better moral insights to the alleged Jesus.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology

Posted on: April 30, 2011 - 7:04am #135

Wowzers1

Posts: 312

Joined: 2011-04-03

Offline

BobSpence1 wrote:There is a

BobSpence1 wrote:

There is a clear distinction between trading in something, and stealing it. You are blatantly refusing to admit that your interpretation probably wrong, when taken in context, something Theists continually accuse us of failing to do when we read the bible.

I'm not refusing to admit anything...I'm showing you the possible translations and the condemnation would include any of these aforementioned possible translations of the word. All forms (man-stealing, slave-trading, and kidnapping) are forms of human trafficking, and in any case, would be wrong. What I think is the case is that you want to to be as you translated as man-stealer then applied to your "slaves as property" notion only to prop up your holey case for the Bible supporting slavery.

BobSpence1 wrote:

There are plenty of passages which suggest that both bonded servitude and straight-out slavery, with slaves as commodities to be traded.
I never intended to suggest, and I don't think I could be read as suggesting, that the bible actually supports, or is 'optimistic towards' (a strange phrase, in this context) slavery. It is its
failure to condemn
trading in persons as commodities which I find obnoxious, just as I think you would if it failed to condemn murder, even it it didn't actually support it.
Show me where Jesus is quoted as saying all slaves should be freed, unconditionally, and that the practice was wrong, and not just as something you are reading into the text.

No...I'm not talking about where Jesus said set all slaves free. I'm talking about Jesus as the liberator of slaves... particularly with regards to sin.

But failure to condemn does not mean anything, and is at best an argument from silence.

BobSpence1 wrote:

It is irrelevant whether or not they had a specific word for the different forms of bondage. If they had no phrases, or forms of description to distinguish them, then that supports my assertion that bonded servants were not that different from traded slaves, in the eyes of the writers, which means they were very 'unenlightened', which is not what one would expect of people in some real communion with a loving and omniscient god, who wanted them to know true morality.

Actually, it would work against your case because you cannot build with any degree of certainty that they were "trading" slaves. But even if what you are saying is true, then you cannot deny that what I'm calling modern slavery is any different from bond-slavery and the would be "enlightened" people have just white washed it accordingly. So it appears that you'd be in a gambit there.

BobSpence1 wrote:

In my eyes, you are just digging yourself deeper into a hole trying to justify this stuff as embodying more than the ideas of a sub-set of society of that period.

My problem is that you're trying to construct a case without considering how slavery was viewed as a whole. To me, you're being rather selective in your facts...

BobSpence1 wrote:

There were already people in other cultures of the time and earlier who had come up with similar or better moral insights to the alleged Jesus.

What does that have to do with Jesus though?

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal

Posted on: April 30, 2011 - 7:36am #136

BobSpence

Posts: 5939

Joined: 2006-02-14

Offline

They are all

They are all human-trafficking, but "man-stealing" would be wrong, even from a "slave-trader"'s perspective. IOW forms of 'human-trafficking' were considered wrong, others not.

Modern slavery is different from bonded servitude. Fact.

Failing to condemn a basic 'sin' such as murder in something claiming to define morality would be highly significant, whether you agree or not. The bible fails to put rape, torture and slavery in some category as murder, theft , or lying, all of which gain a mention in the magic Ten, as well as the non-crime of 'covetting'.

Those observations, plus my final comment about other cultures coming up with many of these ideas, sometimes in better formulations, all point to the FACT that the bible does not deserve to be regarded as anything at all special as a 'moral' guide.

Since it is also clear that it has nothing useful to say about the actual origins of everything, it really is a useless document it fails to convey any reliable knowledge about how the Universe and ourselves 'got here', and is not a good guide to how we 'should' behave, so who needs it? I certainly don't.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology

Posted on: April 30, 2011 - 9:14am #137

ProzacDeathWish

Posts: 4147

Joined: 2007-12-02

Offline

Wowzers1 wrote: My

Wowzers1 wrote:

My contention is with easily accessible unsecured debt, typically manifested in credit cards and the like. Don't hear me say credit is evil... Rather the practices of exploiting people by making high interest loans easily available and then creating a perpetual cycle of revolving debt... That, IMHO, is no different than "slavery".

Exaggerate much ? When was the last time one of your creditors tried beating you with a rod ( per Exodus 21 ) or attempted to pass you along to their descendants ( Leviticus 25 ) as an inheritance because they literally classified you as a piece of property ?

Posted on: April 30, 2011 - 8:38am #138

Wowzers1

Posts: 312

Joined: 2011-04-03

Offline

BobSpence1 wrote:They are

BobSpence1 wrote:

They are all human-trafficking, but "man-stealing" would be wrong, even from a "slave-trader"'s perspective. IOW forms of 'human-trafficking' were considered wrong, others not.
Modern slavery is different from bonded servitude. Fact.

But you have no reason to believe that is the case other than it is the only way it would be compatible with your shakey assertions. I don't think it is necessarily the case, nor do I have reason to believe it to be. I don't need it to be any one of the possible translations to know that whatever the author had in mind is wrong or to assert that any one of the possible translations is wrong. To me, this sounds more reasonable.

BobSpence1 wrote:

Failing to condemn a basic 'sin' such as murder in something claiming to define morality would be highly significant, whether you agree or not. The bible fails to put rape, torture and slavery in some category as murder, theft , or lying, all of which gain a mention in the magic Ten, as well as the non-crime of 'covetting'.
Those observations, plus my final comment about other cultures coming up with many of these ideas, sometimes in better formulations, all point to the FACT that the bible does not deserve to be regarded as anything at all special as a 'moral' guide.

This is both an argument from silence and a red herring. If they are reasons for rejecting the Bible they are fallacious ones. I'm not saying you have to accept the Bible as a moral guide, I just don't think your accusations are well grounded in the Bible.

BobSpence1 wrote:

Since it is also clear that it has nothing useful to say about the actual origins of everything, it really is a useless document it fails to convey any reliable knowledge about how the Universe and ourselves 'got here', and is not a good guide to how we 'should' behave, so who needs it? I certainly don't.

This is yet another red herring....

But even so, I'm not going to go to "Nature" or some other scientific journal for morality either. Because something is not something else does not make useless or otherwise. To write something off for this reason would be a category mistake.

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal

Posted on: April 30, 2011 - 9:59am #139

redneF

Posts: 1970

Joined: 2011-01-04

Offline

Wowzers1 wrote:BobSpence1

Wowzers1 wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
Since it is also clear that it has nothing useful to say about the actual origins of everything, it really is a useless document it fails to convey any reliable knowledge about how the Universe and ourselves 'got here', and is not a good guide to how we 'should' behave, so who needs it? I certainly don't.
This is yet another red herring....

No.

It's a synopsis.

Wowzers1 wrote:

I'm not going to go to "Nature" or some other scientific journal for morality either.

Both those alternatives are more comprehensive methods of of distilling 'right' from 'wrong', which are both misnomers, for 'better' and 'worse'.

Solutions for social problems, due to perspective, will inevitably be arguable, among individuals, which is why analyzing 'moral' dilemmas is more akin to economics than simple mathematics.

Wowzers1 wrote:

Because something is not something else does not make useless or otherwise. To write something off for this reason would be a category mistake.

Obviously this is a logical fallacy, as we are not a theocracy, and the vast majority of Judeo Christian theists are moderates, and cherry pick their morals.

Wowzers1 wrote:

We print pornography and make website for it, and call it "freedom of speech".

Actually, that would make it freedom of expression.

You still have failed to demonstrate why it's a detriment, nor will you be able to.

Wowzers1 wrote:

We acceptably fornicate and call it a "sexual revolution".

Fucking is an inalienable human right.

Get over it.

Wowzers1 wrote:

We kill unborn children and call it "choice".

You're deliberately being ambiguous in your qualifier. A zygote is not an unborn child.

In any event, there is no retribution possible for a miscarriage, or stillborn, therefore, no logical extension of sentencing a woman guilty of murder, for an abortion.

Wowzers1 wrote:

We have easily accessible unsecured debt that people bond themselves to. This used to be called "slavery" but now we call it "credit".

Cognitive dissonance.

That's not only a strawman of epic proportions, but a clear indicator that you are disturbingly out of touch with reality.

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris

Posted on: April 30, 2011 - 2:36pm #140

BobSpence

Posts: 5939

Joined: 2006-02-14

Offline

Wowzers1 wrote:BobSpence1

Wowzers1 wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
They are all human-trafficking, but "man-stealing" would be wrong, even from a "slave-trader"'s perspective. IOW forms of 'human-trafficking' were considered wrong, others not.
Modern slavery is different from bonded servitude. Fact.
But you have no reason to believe that is the case other than it is the only way it would be compatible with your shakey assertions. I don't think it is necessarily the case, nor do I have reason to believe it to be. I don't need it to be any one of the possible translations to know that whatever the author had in mind is wrong or to assert that any one of the possible translations is wrong. To me, this sounds more reasonable.

There is nothing 'shaky' in my assertions. They are simple statements of fact.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
Failing to condemn a basic 'sin' such as murder in something claiming to define morality would be highly significant, whether you agree or not. The bible fails to put rape, torture and slavery in some category as murder, theft , or lying, all of which gain a mention in the magic Ten, as well as the non-crime of 'covetting'.
Those observations, plus my final comment about other cultures coming up with many of these ideas, sometimes in better formulations, all point to the FACT that the bible does not deserve to be regarded as anything at all special as a 'moral' guide.
This is both an argument from silence and a red herring. If they are reasons for rejecting the Bible they are fallacious ones. I'm not saying you have to accept the Bible as a moral guide, I just don't think your accusations are well grounded in the Bible.

I am not using them as arguments for "rejecting the Bible", just pointing out that there are no good arguments for accepting as any sort of authority.

And of course my accusations are not grounded in theBible, they are grounded in fact and knowledge independent of the bible, and based on the many discrepancies between properly checkable and confirmable fact and what one can honestly draw from the bible, as distinct from what you can read into it.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
Since it is also clear that it has nothing useful to say about the actual origins of everything, it really is a useless document it fails to convey any reliable knowledge about how the Universe and ourselves 'got here', and is not a good guide to how we 'should' behave, so who needs it? I certainly don't.
This is yet another red herring....
But even so, I'm not going to go to "Nature" or some other scientific journal for morality either. Because something is not something else does not make useless or otherwise. To write something off for this reason would be a category mistake.

A 'red herring'? So you don't care if it fails on either of those grounds? What are you left with??

As red said, we get a more solid basis for moral guidelines by actually studying how people behave and react, across cultures, that by simply reading what a bunch of ignorant tribesmen thought a couple of millennia ago.

Science = knowledge;

Religious Faith = wishful thinking/delusion.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology

Posted on: April 30, 2011 - 10:24pm #141

Wowzers1

Posts: 312

Joined: 2011-04-03

Offline

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Exaggerate much ? When was the last time one of your creditors tried beating you with a rod ( per Exodus 21 ) or attempted to pass you along to their descendants ( Leviticus 25 ) as an inheritance because they literally classified you as a piece of property ?

Debts held by a father are inheritable even today... And those that don't pay debts are often punished by taking away one's house and property.... Is that any better?

P.S. -- I like your J.R. "Bob" Dobbs avatar. Smiling

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal

Posted on: April 30, 2011 - 10:45pm #142

Wowzers1

Posts: 312

Joined: 2011-04-03

Offline

BobSpence1 wrote:There is

BobSpence1 wrote:

There is nothing 'shaky' in my assertions. They are simple statements of fact.

"Simple statements of fact" don't require a particular interpretation to be a such.

BobSpence1 wrote:

I am not using them as arguments for "rejecting the Bible", just pointing out that there are no good arguments for accepting as any sort of authority.
And of course my accusations are not grounded in theBible, they are grounded in fact and knowledge independent of the bible, and based on the many discrepancies between properly checkable and confirmable fact and what one can honestly draw from the bible, as distinct from what you can read into it.

Reading into it? How do you get that? I was criticizing many for not taking into account the full scope of the Bible and focusing on selected verses from the first five books... You may be able to ascertain a "fact" from the Bible, but in and of itself, that'd be quote mining.

BobSpence1 wrote:

A 'red herring'? So you don't care if it fails on either of those grounds? What are you left with??
As red said, we get a more solid basis for moral guidelines by actually studying how people behave and react, across cultures, that by simply reading what a bunch of ignorant tribesmen thought a couple of millennia ago.
Science = knowledge;
Religious Faith = wishful thinking/delusion.

Using ad hominems and appealing to novelty to bolster a red herring is a poor choice.

How to you propose that science is capable of producing morality? Studying how people behave and react is one thing, but ascertaining moral principle from it would be something completely different, and I think would be outside the scope of science.

And for the most part, you've all but dropped my concerns about fornication, pornography, and abortion... I have other things. If this the product of modern morality, then I have very good reason to reject would-be modern sensibilities it as a moral guide.

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal

Posted on: April 30, 2011 - 11:06pm #143

redneF

Posts: 1970

Joined: 2011-01-04

Offline

Wowzers1 wrote: How to you

Wowzers1 wrote:

How to you propose that science is capable of producing morality?

That's a category error.

You can still analyze it academically, but from a discipline such as economics (cause/effect).

Actions (behaviours) and solutions for dilemmas are not a right/wrong (correct/incorrect) dichotomy. They have a 'range' between best/worst, and have a 3rd value 'benign', all of which are subjective.

Even if it were the case that a god greated the first man and woman, it is special pleading to assert that the 'giver of life' to the first descendants should be capable of dictating what is best/worst for autonomous individuals.

Wowzers1 wrote:

And for the most part, you've all but dropped my concerns about fornication, pornography, and abortion...

Appeals to emotion.

There are no logical grounds for anyone to object to what others do with/to their bodies.

Wowzers1 wrote:

I have other things.

All you have are personal beefs.

But no logical grounds to impose your will over another.

Which is why you have no power to dictate, and never will.

Telling others 'they're going to get it in the end', is the best you can do, and people have the option to ignore you...

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris

Posted on: April 30, 2011 - 11:41pm #144

Wowzers1

Posts: 312

Joined: 2011-04-03

Offline

If you care to talk without

If you care to talk without the use of expletives and want to engage in a discussion rather than attempt to start flame war, I will respond to you.

Otherwise I will continue to ignore your posts...

redneF wrote:

Wowzers1 wrote:
How to you propose that science is capable of producing morality?
That's a category error.

I was asking the question for clarity sake, because I think it would be a category mistake to suppose that science is capable of producing some sort of morality.

redneF wrote:

You can still analyze it academically, but from a discipline such as economics (cause/effect).

Cause and effect are one thing, but ascribing some sort of value to the cause and effects is something entirely different.

redneF wrote:

Actions (behaviours) and solutions for dilemmas are not a right/wrong (correct/incorrect) dichotomy. They have a 'range' between best/worst, and have a 3rd value 'benign', all of which are subjective.

"Best/worst" in what regard? What is the rubric for determining this?

redneF wrote:

Even if it were the case that a god greated the first man and woman, it is special pleading to assert that the 'giver of life' to the first descendants should be capable of dictating what is best/worst for autonomous individuals.

Special pleading in what regard? Does a parent not have the right to determine what he or she thinks is best for his or her progeny?

redneF wrote:

Appeals to emotion.

What emotion did I appeal to?

redneF wrote:

There are no logical grounds for anyone to object to what others do with/to their bodies.

Is this in the context of abortion, pornography, fornication, or a combination there of?

redneF wrote:

All you have are personal beefs.
But no logical grounds to impose your will over another.
Which is why you have no power to dictate, and never will.
Telling others 'they're going to get it in the end', is the best you can do, and people have the option to ignore you...

If this is true, then what grounds do you have or anyone else have to say that the Bible is bad for its content? Yet you're telling me that I have not grounds to think a certain way concerning how another should treat their body... You seem to be pretty inconsistent in your application of your moral relativism.

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal

Posted on: May 1, 2011 - 1:00am #145

Atheistextremist

Posts: 5134

Joined: 2009-09-17

Offline

How are you with say,

birth control, Wows? How does this fit with your particular morality?

Posted on: May 1, 2011 - 1:03am #146

redneF

Posts: 1970

Joined: 2011-01-04

Offline

Wowzers1 wrote:redneF

Wowzers1 wrote:

redneF wrote:
Wowzers1 wrote:
How to you propose that science is capable of producing morality?
That's a category error.
I was asking the question for clarity sake, because I think it would be a category mistake to suppose that science is capable of producing some sort of morality.

I doubt anyone has claimed that science can determine morals, for the simple reason that that's like claiming science can be used to determine if something tastes too sweet.

It's non sensical.

Wowzers1 wrote:

redneF wrote:
You can still analyze it academically, but from a discipline such as economics (cause/effect).
Cause and effect are one thing, but ascribing some sort of value to the cause and effects is something entirely different.

I understand that. One can study cause and effect, without assigning values to outcomes.

Wowzers1 wrote:

redneF wrote:
Actions (behaviours) and solutions for dilemmas are not a right/wrong (correct/incorrect) dichotomy. They have a 'range' between best/worst, and have a 3rd value 'benign', all of which are subjective.
"Best/worst" in what regard?

Based on whatever action/dilemma is being evaluated.

Wowzers1 wrote:

What is the rubric for determining this?

There isn't a '1 size fits all' rubric, for any given action/dilemma, which is why each situation is so subjective.

For example, if you have a business with a number of sales people. There are any number of different styles of 'selling', and we can debate till the cows come home on what the 'right' way to sell is.

One manager might favour an aggressive approach, while another might favour a more relaxed and courteous manner, and it can be difficult to determine which one is the 'right' way, as it depends on many different factors (the type of customer, the competition, the market, the economy, the time of the year, etc, etc...)

You cannot judge things in a vacuum.

Wowzers1 wrote:

redneF wrote:
Even if it were the case that a god greated the first man and woman, it is special pleading to assert that the 'giver of life' to the first descendants should be capable of dictating what is best/worst for autonomous individuals.
Special pleading in what regard?

In the regard that we are not the 'property', or slaves to another's desires.

Wowzers1 wrote:

Does a parent not have the right to determine what he or she thinks is best for his or her progeny?

Every person has the right to their opinion. How their opinion is expressed, and manifests in relation to their children is another matter.

Wowzers1 wrote:

redneF wrote:
Appeals to emotion.
What emotion did I appeal to?

The topics that you outlined are ones that a lot of people can easily get emotionally stirred up over, and objectivity suffers as a consequence.

Wowzers1 wrote:

redneF wrote:
There are no logical grounds for anyone to object to what others do with/to their bodies.
Is this in the context of abortion, pornography, fornication, or a combination there of?

Yes.

I outlined those in an earlier post.

I'm assuming by fornication you mean having sexual intercourse outside of marriage. I don't see what is possibly immoral about that.

As far as pornography.....in general, I don't see what the problem really is, either. In fact, it probably has many positive consequences.

I have no issues with terminating pregnancies. Neither does nature.

Wowzers1 wrote:

redneF wrote:
All you have are personal beefs.
But no logical grounds to impose your will over another.
Which is why you have no power to dictate, and never will.
Telling others 'they're going to get it in the end', is the best you can do, and people have the option to ignore you...
If this is true, then what grounds do you have or anyone else have to say that the Bible is bad for its content?

Because I have my own mind to arrive at determinations.

Wowzers1 wrote:

Yet you're telling me that I have not grounds to think a certain way concerning how another should treat their body...

I'm not seeing any logic behind them.

Wowzers1 wrote:

You seem to be pretty inconsistent in your application of your moral relativism.

I disagree.

We can debate where we feel the other is inconsistent.

I'm curious about your definiton, and position on fornication.

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris

Posted on: May 1, 2011 - 1:11am #147

Atheistextremist

Posts: 5134

Joined: 2009-09-17

Offline

So your version of what's right

Wowzers1 wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:
Wows. What things are these civil liberties that you consider a step backwards? Be specific.
We print pornography and make website for it, and call it "freedom of speech".
We acceptably fornicate and call it a "sexual revolution".
We kill unborn children and call it "choice".
We have easily accessible unsecured debt that people bond themselves to. This used to be called "slavery" but now we call it "credit".

doesn't include sex without the incantations of the doctrines of your faith, doesn't include porn (do you include the fevers of the human imagination in your definition of porn, I wonder), and does not include abortion. But it does include death for refusal to accept the existence of a being for which no known evidence exists. This is an interesting way to think. I imagine you call one list of actions sin, the other you call justice. To me, you are being morally inconsistent.

If you really have such issues with these sins, the first 2 of which can't be considered mortal sins in any way, why is it you are fine with mass slaughter? Why is the murder of billions of sentient beings worse than the dislodging of blastocysts? I'd have thought some one with your fierce integrity would have a problem with a god who kills. It rather makes me question your intrinsic values.

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

Posted on: May 1, 2011 - 3:33am #148

Posts: 3330

Joined: 2007-01-05

Offline

Wowzers1 wrote: redneF

Wowzers1 wrote:

redneF wrote:

Even if it were the case that a god greated the first man and woman, it is special pleading to assert that the 'giver of life' to the first descendants should be capable of dictating what is best/worst for autonomous individuals.

Special pleading in what regard? Does a parent not have the right to determine what he or she thinks is best for his or her progeny?

I have a lot of problems with your position, but this one really bugs me.

What is "best" for your progeny? Beating with a rod - as the bible encourages us to do. Hitting, slapping spanking, burned with cigarettes? We can debate until the cows come home about the proper level of discipline - a swat on a pair of jeans will hurt mom's hand more than it will hurt the child's buttocks. But will it hurt the child's growth and development? Depends on the child. How does any parent know in advance what level of punishment to give to a particular child?

And before you start on about my expertise - I'm not particularly expert. But I have 3 adult sons who all managed to grow up to be decent fellows somehow - maybe with my parenting skills assisting them in their development and maybe I hindered them some as well. But what I can tell you for certain sure is that what worked with the oldest did not work with the middle one and it wasn't even an issue for the youngest. Each child is unique and each parent must adjust their style and technique for each child.

We have laws about child abuse in most countries for a reason - many parents do not know how to parent and they believe what is best for their child is a beating. Parents have the right to have children. But they do not have the right to beat them, abuse them, neglect them, or deny them an education. Regardless of whether what the parent is doing is what they believe to be "best" for their progeny.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.

Posted on: May 1, 2011 - 5:09am #149

Wowzers1

Posts: 312

Joined: 2011-04-03

Offline

Atheistextremist wrote:birth

Atheistextremist wrote:

birth control, Wows? How does this fit with your particular morality?

I prefer abstinence as the form of birth control as it is the only 100% effective form that I know of...

I'm not opposed to birth control though...

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal

Posted on: May 1, 2011 - 5:34am #150

Wowzers1

Posts: 312

Joined: 2011-04-03

Offline

redneF wrote:I doubt anyone

redneF wrote:

I doubt anyone has claimed that science can determine morals, for the simple reason that that's like claiming science can be used to determine if something tastes too sweet.
It's non sensical.

Bob was pitching it next to religion in the context of morality... That's why I was asking.

redneF wrote:

There isn't a '1 size fits all' rubric, for any given action/dilemma, which is why each situation is so subjective.
For example, if you have a business with a number of sales people. There are any number of different styles of 'selling', and we can debate till the cows come home on what the 'right' way to sell is.
One manager might favour an aggressive approach, while another might favour a more relaxed and courteous manner, and it can be difficult to determine which one is the 'right' way, as it depends on many different factors (the type of customer, the competition, the market, the economy, the time of the year, etc, etc...)
You cannot judge things in a vacuum.

I don't want to obfuscate the issue of what is the "right" way to do something is what is morally "right" (or in your case "better" )

Even in the absence of a "one sizes fits all" sort of rubric, what is the determinant for the value? The outcome? The Cause? Some arbitrary standard opted by the one performing the action?

Wowzers1 wrote:

Every person has the right to their opinion. How their opinion is expressed, and manifests in relation to their children is another matter.

Sure... but how does that answer my question about parents and progeny?

redneF wrote:

The topics that you outlined are ones that a lot of people can easily get emotionally stirred up over, and objectivity suffers as a consequence.

Emotional issues do not necessarily appeal to emotions, and in the context of this thread concerning morality and considering I'd already mentioned these, I don't think this is the case. I was illuminating what Bob was doing...

redneF wrote:

I'm assuming by fornication you mean having sexual intercourse outside of marriage. I don't see what is possibly immoral about that.
As far as pornography.....in general, I don't see what the problem really is, either. In fact, it probably has many positive consequences.
I have no issues with terminating pregnancies. Neither does nature.

I find these acts morally reprehensible for various reasons. Fornication outside of marriage is a matter of fidelity to one's self, one's spouse, one's future spouse, or the partner's future spouse -- even if it is the same person.

Pornography is abusive to woman, IMHO, as it reduces them to objects of lustful passion. That and pornography is known to create problems in marriages and families too.

It does not sound so bad when you call it "terminating pregnancies". Miscarriages (or naturally terminated pregnancies if you prefer) does not make it right to do the other. Nature has no problem taking lives through natural disasters either... would not make other human beings taking lives right?

redneF wrote:

I disagree.
We can debate where we feel the other is inconsistent.
I'm curious about your definiton, and position on fornication.

I think you're being inconsistent because you said I have no grounds to think what is morally right for another, but yet you think you have the moral grounds to tell me this. That's inconsistent to me and one of the conundrums of relativism in general...

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal