I would much rather see rivers flowing with whiskey and doughnuts growing on trees. That doesn't mean I've proven it. "I'd rather" is not a scientific statement.TexasScientist said:Utilitarianism is a what's best for the majority concept. A humanistic science of morality approach considers empirical evidence for individuals and minorities also. This would give a much better outcome, than a theocratic cleric stating god said slaughter all the Canaanites for the benefit of the Jews. I would much rather society set moral standards of conduct based upon a humanistic science of morality, as opposed to setting those standards based upon a theocratic pronouncement and interpretation of what those morals should be.Sam Lowry said:Whose well-being? The well-being of "humanity?" How is that different from utilitarianism?TexasScientist said:You're confusing utilitarianism with a humanistic science of morality system of morals. A scientific system of morals would make moral determinations upon empirical evidence of well being.The scenario you have put forward is more analogous to Yahweh's order to kill the men, women, children and animals for the benefit of the Jews. This would clearly be immoral in a humanistic scientific system of morality.BaylorFTW said:You say that but I could spin some narrative about how the rapist had to rape because he had a sexual emergency and it would have been harmful to him to not allow it. And who knows, maybe it would be ok to torture some children because they were misbehaving and needed to be made an example of for the rest of the children so they wouldn't do more harm to society. From your worldview, you would have trouble saying I was wrong because my examples also would arguably reduce harm.quash said:Humanistic morality is not absolute (yay) but it does have values that help in determining right from wrong. YOu choose two odd examples given that TS has already said that harm reduction is key. Humanism would have no problem saying that rape and child torture is wrong. FTR.BaylorFTW said:TexasScientist said:
Science can prove harm to other's wellbeing. Judeo/Christian/Islamic god's law doesn't take harm to other's into consideration, but instead provides justification for barbarism.Quote:
Oh yes, Christianity does. And don't forget when we gave you a chance to take your atheistic morality for a spin, you directly avoided the specific questions that put your morality idea to the test. Who is to say your system wouldn't cause greater harm in the long run and is thus inferior?My point was that Christianity and God do take harm of others into account. Christianity raised the value of women in society and also brought protection to those who were oppressed. Its teachings encouraged the creation of charities and services for them whether it be almshouses, women's shelters, hospitals, schools, universities, orphanages, etc. And this was all done based on the morality set out by God in the bible. So you can't make the claim that God isn't taking the harm of others into account. In fact, God's prohibitions are designed to protect people and keep them from harm in much the same way a parent might put a curfew on their teenage son. That is technically a restriction of their freedom but it is done to keep them out of harm's way by keeping them out of some potentially bad situations.Quote:
I haven't avoided any questions. My view is the only one out here that considers evidence based harm to others as a moral benchmark. The others depend upon belief in a religious cleric's various interpretations of ancient writings. The OT, the NT and the Quran all promote immoral acts and beliefs, to varying degrees.
Also, it is interesting that you are claiming it is a benefit that your worldview is morally flexible and can change with the time and culture. This implies that there are not absolute rights and wrongs. It would be interesting to hear you try to justify why rape is sometimes ok or the torturing of small children for fun could be ok. I think your worldview with such flexible morality will invariably lead to abuse and harm because there is nothing preventing it. Your worldview eventually creates an apathy in its people where nobody is able to criticize anyone else because morality becomes subjective. It will lead to chaos instead of order.
And remember, I also gave a couple of earlier examples where he choose not to address head on.
1. What happens when you have competing values and agencies of human beings? Who wins out and why? For example, let's say a mother decides she needs money and wants to kill her toddler to sell her parts and organs so the mother can enjoy more of her value and agency. Does her value and agency trump the toddler's?
2. If a religious person and a humanist have a dispute, does the humanist always win out because they are supposedly not dogmatic or superstitious? What about the value and agency of the religious person?
The issue will still be that you will have to pick winners on what harm trumps the other. And you will run into the issue of short term versus long term harm. You could well be making choices that bring greater long term harm. Since he was making the claim his secular morality is better, he would need to show how these obstacles would be avoided. But you are welcome to take up the cause and show us how these issues would be resolved. I am genuinely curious because I see these aspects as very challenging to your position.
Atheists Sounds Alarm on Decline of Christianity
54,023 Views |
723 Replies |
Last: 4 yr ago by Osodecentx
But I assume those values are flexible. My idea of freedom and justice is as good as yours, right?quash said:Gains in areas of value: freedom, justice, etc.Sam Lowry said:How do you measure improvement if the standard is flexible?quash said:What do you value more: inflexibility or improvement?curtpenn said:TexasScientist said:Religion arbitrarily determines "right" and "wrong" based upon a clerics declaration. The difference is that the moral benchmark to make this determination is based upon empirical evidence of harm and well being of others - not base upon my opinion, as in the case of religious clergy, but based upon empirical evidence.curtpenn said:You cannot demonstrate/prove that facilitating evolutionary survival is "good" apart from some sort of derived value system. If everything that exists (as I think you believe) is the product of time and chance, then there is no basis for such concepts as right or wrong. Again, you arbitrarily assume survival as a good. Thereby assigning it a value which is no different in method from your view of the behavior of religious clerics.TexasScientist said:The need to provide viable cooperation and order to facilitate interaction in large groups of people. It's an evolutionary survival trait.curtpenn said:Not my point. Sorry if that isn't clear. What makes "harm to others" a preferred criterion over other possibilities?quash said:curtpenn said:Seems to me your use of "evidence based harm to others as a moral benchmark" is fundamentally no different in kind than using a system dependent "upon belief in a religious cleric's various interpretations of ancient writings". Both positions could be said to be arbitrary and circular.TexasScientist said:
I haven't avoided any questions. My view is the only one out here that considers evidence based harm to others as a moral benchmark. Tho other depend upon belief in a religious cleric's various interpretations of ancient writings. The OT, the NT and the Quran all promote immoral acts and beliefs, to varying degrees.
That's not how evidence based decision making works. And it never shrugs off bad outcomes with "mysterious ways". It seeks to illuminate mysteries with facts.
You often refer to a "moral benchmark". Based on what? You might say, "harm to others". Again, based on what? Your opinion?
And yet you claim your "empirical evidence" based system changes, yes?
"Everyone's morals are subjective, flexible and can change with time and culture."
Hmmm....
ATL Bear said:Given those same countries/cultures you extol are dying due to low birth rates, your societal evolutionary benefit argument fails. If anything, the trend says they are on a path to extinction.TexasScientist said:Why do you believe that? People tend to live by their culturally imposed rules. The areas around the world that have the most chaos and violence are those with religious based law. The areas where the quality of life is highest, in terms of happiness and violence, are the least religious. The most violent countries around the world tend to be the most religious. The Bible Belt in this country has high crime rates, low literacy rates, and lowest per capita income. Finland, Norway, Netherlands, and Denmark are the happiest and least religious. They're not nihilistic and suicidal.Doc Holliday said:
A non religious society will be nihilistic and suicidal.
Morals would decay and change rapidly.
Society would break down as religion is used to herd the sheep (in a good manner). Without it...complete chaos.
And no doubt those nations are only in their current positions because of the sacrifices of others.
Double negative, for one.quash said:The grammar is fine.Oldbear83 said:
quash: "Anything that does not exist in a form we cannot perceive with our senses is inherently supernatural. "
Aside from your garbled grammar, that statement is false. The whole subject of Quantum Mechanics, for example, would be "supernatural" by your definition.
It would be more honest and simple for you to simply say that you refuse to seriously consider religion in any sense but as a form of superstition. You would be rejecting a great deal of wisdom and history, but at least you would be more authentic in your position.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Sam Lowry said:But I assume those values are flexible. My idea of freedom and justice is as good as yours, right?quash said:Gains in areas of value: freedom, justice, etc.Sam Lowry said:How do you measure improvement if the standard is flexible?quash said:What do you value more: inflexibility or improvement?curtpenn said:TexasScientist said:Religion arbitrarily determines "right" and "wrong" based upon a clerics declaration. The difference is that the moral benchmark to make this determination is based upon empirical evidence of harm and well being of others - not base upon my opinion, as in the case of religious clergy, but based upon empirical evidence.curtpenn said:You cannot demonstrate/prove that facilitating evolutionary survival is "good" apart from some sort of derived value system. If everything that exists (as I think you believe) is the product of time and chance, then there is no basis for such concepts as right or wrong. Again, you arbitrarily assume survival as a good. Thereby assigning it a value which is no different in method from your view of the behavior of religious clerics.TexasScientist said:The need to provide viable cooperation and order to facilitate interaction in large groups of people. It's an evolutionary survival trait.curtpenn said:Not my point. Sorry if that isn't clear. What makes "harm to others" a preferred criterion over other possibilities?quash said:curtpenn said:Seems to me your use of "evidence based harm to others as a moral benchmark" is fundamentally no different in kind than using a system dependent "upon belief in a religious cleric's various interpretations of ancient writings". Both positions could be said to be arbitrary and circular.TexasScientist said:
I haven't avoided any questions. My view is the only one out here that considers evidence based harm to others as a moral benchmark. Tho other depend upon belief in a religious cleric's various interpretations of ancient writings. The OT, the NT and the Quran all promote immoral acts and beliefs, to varying degrees.
That's not how evidence based decision making works. And it never shrugs off bad outcomes with "mysterious ways". It seeks to illuminate mysteries with facts.
You often refer to a "moral benchmark". Based on what? You might say, "harm to others". Again, based on what? Your opinion?
And yet you claim your "empirical evidence" based system changes, yes?
"Everyone's morals are subjective, flexible and can change with time and culture."
Hmmm....
No.
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
There's that binary habit again by quash.quash said:Sam Lowry said:But I assume those values are flexible. My idea of freedom and justice is as good as yours, right?quash said:Gains in areas of value: freedom, justice, etc.Sam Lowry said:How do you measure improvement if the standard is flexible?quash said:What do you value more: inflexibility or improvement?curtpenn said:TexasScientist said:Religion arbitrarily determines "right" and "wrong" based upon a clerics declaration. The difference is that the moral benchmark to make this determination is based upon empirical evidence of harm and well being of others - not base upon my opinion, as in the case of religious clergy, but based upon empirical evidence.curtpenn said:You cannot demonstrate/prove that facilitating evolutionary survival is "good" apart from some sort of derived value system. If everything that exists (as I think you believe) is the product of time and chance, then there is no basis for such concepts as right or wrong. Again, you arbitrarily assume survival as a good. Thereby assigning it a value which is no different in method from your view of the behavior of religious clerics.TexasScientist said:The need to provide viable cooperation and order to facilitate interaction in large groups of people. It's an evolutionary survival trait.curtpenn said:Not my point. Sorry if that isn't clear. What makes "harm to others" a preferred criterion over other possibilities?quash said:curtpenn said:Seems to me your use of "evidence based harm to others as a moral benchmark" is fundamentally no different in kind than using a system dependent "upon belief in a religious cleric's various interpretations of ancient writings". Both positions could be said to be arbitrary and circular.TexasScientist said:
I haven't avoided any questions. My view is the only one out here that considers evidence based harm to others as a moral benchmark. Tho other depend upon belief in a religious cleric's various interpretations of ancient writings. The OT, the NT and the Quran all promote immoral acts and beliefs, to varying degrees.
That's not how evidence based decision making works. And it never shrugs off bad outcomes with "mysterious ways". It seeks to illuminate mysteries with facts.
You often refer to a "moral benchmark". Based on what? You might say, "harm to others". Again, based on what? Your opinion?
And yet you claim your "empirical evidence" based system changes, yes?
"Everyone's morals are subjective, flexible and can change with time and culture."
Hmmm....
No.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
If you are going to claim Jesus did not come for the Gentiles as well as the Jews. You are going to need to explain why Jesus helped the Canaanite woman's daughter. You will have to explain why the Ethiopian eunuch was allowed to convert along with the Roman centurion Cornelius. Not to mention you will have to prove that Paul was a liar when he said otherwise in Galatians 3:28-29 and Colossians 3:11. You will also have to explain away John 3:16 and Genesis 12:3. And you will have to explain other things as well.TexasScientist said:
Didn't Jesus begin his ministry and end his ministry preaching to the Israelites? The same ones to whom supposedly was given the laws of the OT? You don't have those sacrifices today in the Judeo-Christian traditions, except for some, because their moral views have changed concomitant with time and convenience.
For Jews, the sacrifices ended with the destruction of the temple. No temple to do sacrifices. But Christians believe Jesus was their sacrifice as the lamb of God. He was the blood sacrifice for the new covenant. This is partly why Christians don't follow the prior dietary and governmental laws given in the Old Testament. Jesus fulfilled those laws.
It has nothing to do with a change in morality. That is an example of applying modern ideas to the past culture.
No, you are failing to see the difference between the crime and punishment. The crime is wrong regardless of the time and place because it is immoral. However, the punishment can vary depending on the culture and its structure. We don't stone kids because we are not Jews under a Jewish theocracy. But we still discipline disrespectful kids. And in examples where "Christians" tolerate a change in morality, they are not living by the faith. It is not immoral to discipline disrespectful children or to view adultery as a moral wrong. Your issue is you think some of the punishments were too severe but that is just your subjective opinion.TexasScientist said:
So what you're advocating is moral relativism. It's ok to stone one's child for disrespect, or a woman caught in adultery under God's law to the Jews, or it is implied by God that you shouldn't stone a woman unless you are without sin. It is right in one scenario, but may be wrong in another. In my view, it is immoral in either case. A consistently moral god would have never condoned stoning in the first place. What you are essentially advocating is for morals given and enforced by a theocracy.
God's morals are absolute and not subjective. You are making a lot of assertions here but I will just challenge this last one. Prove to us that there would be a lot less chaos in the Middle East if they embraced evidence based humanistic beliefs.TexasScientist said:
Everyone's morals are subjective, flexible and can change with time and culture. Christianity is no different. What is acceptable has changed with time. The practice of stoning is a good example. U. S. Christians embracing of Donald Trump is another. Evidence based morality, taking into consideration harm and the well being of others, leaves you in the position to improve with better knowledge. There would be a lot less chaos in the Middle East if they embraced evidence based humanistic beliefs.
I would suggest your read my post and this post again because you are not getting it for some reason.TexasScientist said:
How is it moral to stone someone as punishment on the one hand, and immoral to stone them on the other? It is either immoral or not. Yahweh is morally inconsistent.
As a Christian, Jesus tells us the second commandment above all others is to love your neighbor as thyself. Tell me how I can justify chattel slavery, rape and torturing of small children for fun in that context. Also, you are misunderstanding Paul's message in the book of Philemon regarding slavery and not taking into account the circumstances of them being under the Roman empire where slavery was commonplace.TexasScientist said:
Rather, you have determined slavery, and rape and torturing small children is wrong and have projected those morals onto Yahweh. When, in fact, the OT and NT both condone slavery. There is no biblical condemnation of slavery. In the OT Yahweh not only condones rape and torturing small children, but actually orders it. This is supposedly the same god. Today most Jews and Christians would consider these practices immoral. Did religion, god, or both change? Supposedly, the same god is the god of Islam, but I don't need to go there to make the point.
God's morality does not change. Men may fail to honor his morality. Christians don't believe the god of Islam is God. They believe Allah was a demon and Muhammad was a false prophet.
Ok, prove it. Where did the objective morality come from and why does it exist if there was not an ultimate lawgiver?TexasScientist said:
In no way does it follow that if objective morality exists, then there must be an ultimate lawgiver or god. They do not have to be related at all.
The well being of all concerned.Sam Lowry said:Whose well-being? The well-being of "humanity?" How is that different from utilitarianism?TexasScientist said:You're confusing utilitarianism with a humanistic science of morality system of morals. A scientific system of morals would make moral determinations upon empirical evidence of well being.The scenario you have put forward is more analogous to Yahweh's order to kill the men, women, children and animals for the benefit of the Jews. This would clearly be immoral in a humanistic scientific system of morality.BaylorFTW said:You say that but I could spin some narrative about how the rapist had to rape because he had a sexual emergency and it would have been harmful to him to not allow it. And who knows, maybe it would be ok to torture some children because they were misbehaving and needed to be made an example of for the rest of the children so they wouldn't do more harm to society. From your worldview, you would have trouble saying I was wrong because my examples also would arguably reduce harm.quash said:Humanistic morality is not absolute (yay) but it does have values that help in determining right from wrong. YOu choose two odd examples given that TS has already said that harm reduction is key. Humanism would have no problem saying that rape and child torture is wrong. FTR.BaylorFTW said:TexasScientist said:
Science can prove harm to other's wellbeing. Judeo/Christian/Islamic god's law doesn't take harm to other's into consideration, but instead provides justification for barbarism.Quote:
Oh yes, Christianity does. And don't forget when we gave you a chance to take your atheistic morality for a spin, you directly avoided the specific questions that put your morality idea to the test. Who is to say your system wouldn't cause greater harm in the long run and is thus inferior?My point was that Christianity and God do take harm of others into account. Christianity raised the value of women in society and also brought protection to those who were oppressed. Its teachings encouraged the creation of charities and services for them whether it be almshouses, women's shelters, hospitals, schools, universities, orphanages, etc. And this was all done based on the morality set out by God in the bible. So you can't make the claim that God isn't taking the harm of others into account. In fact, God's prohibitions are designed to protect people and keep them from harm in much the same way a parent might put a curfew on their teenage son. That is technically a restriction of their freedom but it is done to keep them out of harm's way by keeping them out of some potentially bad situations.Quote:
I haven't avoided any questions. My view is the only one out here that considers evidence based harm to others as a moral benchmark. The others depend upon belief in a religious cleric's various interpretations of ancient writings. The OT, the NT and the Quran all promote immoral acts and beliefs, to varying degrees.
Also, it is interesting that you are claiming it is a benefit that your worldview is morally flexible and can change with the time and culture. This implies that there are not absolute rights and wrongs. It would be interesting to hear you try to justify why rape is sometimes ok or the torturing of small children for fun could be ok. I think your worldview with such flexible morality will invariably lead to abuse and harm because there is nothing preventing it. Your worldview eventually creates an apathy in its people where nobody is able to criticize anyone else because morality becomes subjective. It will lead to chaos instead of order.
And remember, I also gave a couple of earlier examples where he choose not to address head on.
1. What happens when you have competing values and agencies of human beings? Who wins out and why? For example, let's say a mother decides she needs money and wants to kill her toddler to sell her parts and organs so the mother can enjoy more of her value and agency. Does her value and agency trump the toddler's?
2. If a religious person and a humanist have a dispute, does the humanist always win out because they are supposedly not dogmatic or superstitious? What about the value and agency of the religious person?
The issue will still be that you will have to pick winners on what harm trumps the other. And you will run into the issue of short term versus long term harm. You could well be making choices that bring greater long term harm. Since he was making the claim his secular morality is better, he would need to show how these obstacles would be avoided. But you are welcome to take up the cause and show us how these issues would be resolved. I am genuinely curious because I see these aspects as very challenging to your position.
All cultures develop their own morals. They can either base them upon a theocratic approach, autocraticcurtpenn said:TexasScientist said:BaylorFTW said:It meant a lot to those women. You are showing recency bias. This is like belittling the invention of the wheel because we now have the car. The wheel and Christianity's elevation of women's status are very important.TexasScientist said:
Christianity may have raised the value of women in the NT above the value of women in the OT, but that's not saying a whole lot.God's morality does not change but that doesn't mean he had the same rules for all people. The OT laws were given specifically to the Israelites as they lived under a Jewish Theocracy. Gentiles were under no obligation to follow these laws except those that were reaffirmed by Jesus. This is why we don't have animal sacrifices and worship on Saturday or worry about eating shellfish.TexasScientist said:
The NT may imply that you shouldn't stone women, but it still leaves them subservient to men, they cannot teach men, etc. Which of God' prohibitions are you referring to? The ones in the OT or the NT? There are some pretty bad things advocated in the OT. Do you simply cherry pick the one's you like?
Didn't Jesus begin his ministry and end his ministry preaching to the Israelites? The same ones to whom supposedly was given the laws of the OT? You don't have those sacrifices today in the Judeo-Christian traditions, except for some, because their moral views have changed concomitant with time and convenience.
It is also interesting to see you talk in the next paragraph about how things change with each culture yet don't consider this possibility when looking at laws in the OT. For example, the Israelites didn't have prison system like we have today. In such a setting, a stoning as a form of punishment makes sense. Who is to say our system of lethal injection or confinement in a jail cell for life with limited privileges is better especially given your subjective moral standards?
So what you're advocating is moral relativism. It's ok to stone one's child for disrespect, or a woman caught in adultery under God's law to the Jews, or it is implied by God that you shouldn't stone a woman unless you are without sin. It is right in one scenario, but may be wrong in another. In my view, it is immoral in either case. A consistently moral god would have never condoned stoning in the first place. What you are essentially advocating is for morals given and enforced by a theocracy.The punishment may change but the morality does not. Adultery is still wrong regardless of the punishment given out. Now, you may subjectively say that you think adultery is ok but if there is a God who has laid out his absolute morality which includes a prohibition against adultery, your personal tolerance or acceptance of adultery doesn't matter. Absolute/objective morality trumps your subjective standards.TexasScientist said:
Everyone's morals are subjective, flexible and can change with time and culture. Christianity is no different. What is acceptable has changed with time. The practice of stoning is a good example. U. S. Christians embracing of Donald Trump is another. Evidence based morality, taking into consideration harm and the well being of others, leaves you in the position to improve with better knowledge. There would be a lot less chaos in the Middle East if they embraced evidence based humanistic beliefs.
How is it moral to stone someone as punishment on the one hand, and immoral to stone them on the other? It is either immoral or not. Yahweh is morally inconsistent.
And the fact that we can agree that chattel slavery is wrong, rape is wrong or torturing small children for fun is wrong strongly suggests that objective morality exists. And if objective morality exists; then, it follows that there had to be an ultimate lawgiver or God.
Rather, you have determined slavery, and rape and torturing small children is wrong and have projected those morals onto Yahweh. When, in fact, the OT and NT both condone slavery. There is no biblical condemnation of slavery. In the OT Yahweh not only condones rape and torturing small children, but actually orders it. This is supposedly the same god. Today most Jews and Christians would consider these practices immoral. Did religion, god, or both change? Supposedly, the same god is the god of Islam, but I don't need to go there to make the point.
In no way does it follow that if objective morality exists, then there must be an ultimate lawgiver or god. They do not have to be related at all.
You show great faith that such a thing as "objective morality" exists. I don't think you can prove that it does. This is the root issue I have with much of the assertions you make here. In your unilateral claim, you are no different in kind from others who base their beliefs on anything else.
approach, or an egalitarian approach. I would much rather live in a system where egalitarianism, democracy and a humanistic science of morality is the deterministic approach.
Although I think your argument is weak, the rest of the planet could use lower birth rates. Maybe they won't face the consequences of religiously induced overpopulation. They may have an evolutionary advantage.ATL Bear said:Given those same countries/cultures you extol are dying due to low birth rates, your societal evolutionary benefit argument fails. If anything, the trend says they are on a path to extinction.TexasScientist said:Why do you believe that? People tend to live by their culturally imposed rules. The areas around the world that have the most chaos and violence are those with religious based law. The areas where the quality of life is highest, in terms of happiness and violence, are the least religious. The most violent countries around the world tend to be the most religious. The Bible Belt in this country has high crime rates, low literacy rates, and lowest per capita income. Finland, Norway, Netherlands, and Denmark are the happiest and least religious. They're not nihilistic and suicidal.Doc Holliday said:
A non religious society will be nihilistic and suicidal.
Morals would decay and change rapidly.
Society would break down as religion is used to herd the sheep (in a good manner). Without it...complete chaos.
Neuroscience can tell us why we prefer one outcome over another. It can tell us why we prefer whiskey and doughnuts. I would love to have unlimited whiskey and doughnuts, but I wouldn't love the disease and morbidity that would come with it. LOLSam Lowry said:I would much rather see rivers flowing with whiskey and doughnuts growing on trees. That doesn't mean I've proven it. "I'd rather" is not a scientific statement.TexasScientist said:Utilitarianism is a what's best for the majority concept. A humanistic science of morality approach considers empirical evidence for individuals and minorities also. This would give a much better outcome, than a theocratic cleric stating god said slaughter all the Canaanites for the benefit of the Jews. I would much rather society set moral standards of conduct based upon a humanistic science of morality, as opposed to setting those standards based upon a theocratic pronouncement and interpretation of what those morals should be.Sam Lowry said:Whose well-being? The well-being of "humanity?" How is that different from utilitarianism?TexasScientist said:You're confusing utilitarianism with a humanistic science of morality system of morals. A scientific system of morals would make moral determinations upon empirical evidence of well being.The scenario you have put forward is more analogous to Yahweh's order to kill the men, women, children and animals for the benefit of the Jews. This would clearly be immoral in a humanistic scientific system of morality.BaylorFTW said:You say that but I could spin some narrative about how the rapist had to rape because he had a sexual emergency and it would have been harmful to him to not allow it. And who knows, maybe it would be ok to torture some children because they were misbehaving and needed to be made an example of for the rest of the children so they wouldn't do more harm to society. From your worldview, you would have trouble saying I was wrong because my examples also would arguably reduce harm.quash said:Humanistic morality is not absolute (yay) but it does have values that help in determining right from wrong. YOu choose two odd examples given that TS has already said that harm reduction is key. Humanism would have no problem saying that rape and child torture is wrong. FTR.BaylorFTW said:TexasScientist said:
Science can prove harm to other's wellbeing. Judeo/Christian/Islamic god's law doesn't take harm to other's into consideration, but instead provides justification for barbarism.Quote:
Oh yes, Christianity does. And don't forget when we gave you a chance to take your atheistic morality for a spin, you directly avoided the specific questions that put your morality idea to the test. Who is to say your system wouldn't cause greater harm in the long run and is thus inferior?My point was that Christianity and God do take harm of others into account. Christianity raised the value of women in society and also brought protection to those who were oppressed. Its teachings encouraged the creation of charities and services for them whether it be almshouses, women's shelters, hospitals, schools, universities, orphanages, etc. And this was all done based on the morality set out by God in the bible. So you can't make the claim that God isn't taking the harm of others into account. In fact, God's prohibitions are designed to protect people and keep them from harm in much the same way a parent might put a curfew on their teenage son. That is technically a restriction of their freedom but it is done to keep them out of harm's way by keeping them out of some potentially bad situations.Quote:
I haven't avoided any questions. My view is the only one out here that considers evidence based harm to others as a moral benchmark. The others depend upon belief in a religious cleric's various interpretations of ancient writings. The OT, the NT and the Quran all promote immoral acts and beliefs, to varying degrees.
Also, it is interesting that you are claiming it is a benefit that your worldview is morally flexible and can change with the time and culture. This implies that there are not absolute rights and wrongs. It would be interesting to hear you try to justify why rape is sometimes ok or the torturing of small children for fun could be ok. I think your worldview with such flexible morality will invariably lead to abuse and harm because there is nothing preventing it. Your worldview eventually creates an apathy in its people where nobody is able to criticize anyone else because morality becomes subjective. It will lead to chaos instead of order.
And remember, I also gave a couple of earlier examples where he choose not to address head on.
1. What happens when you have competing values and agencies of human beings? Who wins out and why? For example, let's say a mother decides she needs money and wants to kill her toddler to sell her parts and organs so the mother can enjoy more of her value and agency. Does her value and agency trump the toddler's?
2. If a religious person and a humanist have a dispute, does the humanist always win out because they are supposedly not dogmatic or superstitious? What about the value and agency of the religious person?
The issue will still be that you will have to pick winners on what harm trumps the other. And you will run into the issue of short term versus long term harm. You could well be making choices that bring greater long term harm. Since he was making the claim his secular morality is better, he would need to show how these obstacles would be avoided. But you are welcome to take up the cause and show us how these issues would be resolved. I am genuinely curious because I see these aspects as very challenging to your position.
No.Sam Lowry said:But I assume those values are flexible. My idea of freedom and justice is as good as yours, right?quash said:Gains in areas of value: freedom, justice, etc.Sam Lowry said:How do you measure improvement if the standard is flexible?quash said:What do you value more: inflexibility or improvement?curtpenn said:TexasScientist said:Religion arbitrarily determines "right" and "wrong" based upon a clerics declaration. The difference is that the moral benchmark to make this determination is based upon empirical evidence of harm and well being of others - not base upon my opinion, as in the case of religious clergy, but based upon empirical evidence.curtpenn said:You cannot demonstrate/prove that facilitating evolutionary survival is "good" apart from some sort of derived value system. If everything that exists (as I think you believe) is the product of time and chance, then there is no basis for such concepts as right or wrong. Again, you arbitrarily assume survival as a good. Thereby assigning it a value which is no different in method from your view of the behavior of religious clerics.TexasScientist said:The need to provide viable cooperation and order to facilitate interaction in large groups of people. It's an evolutionary survival trait.curtpenn said:Not my point. Sorry if that isn't clear. What makes "harm to others" a preferred criterion over other possibilities?quash said:curtpenn said:Seems to me your use of "evidence based harm to others as a moral benchmark" is fundamentally no different in kind than using a system dependent "upon belief in a religious cleric's various interpretations of ancient writings". Both positions could be said to be arbitrary and circular.TexasScientist said:
I haven't avoided any questions. My view is the only one out here that considers evidence based harm to others as a moral benchmark. Tho other depend upon belief in a religious cleric's various interpretations of ancient writings. The OT, the NT and the Quran all promote immoral acts and beliefs, to varying degrees.
That's not how evidence based decision making works. And it never shrugs off bad outcomes with "mysterious ways". It seeks to illuminate mysteries with facts.
You often refer to a "moral benchmark". Based on what? You might say, "harm to others". Again, based on what? Your opinion?
And yet you claim your "empirical evidence" based system changes, yes?
"Everyone's morals are subjective, flexible and can change with time and culture."
Hmmm....
As are many other countries, including the U.S.curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:Given those same countries/cultures you extol are dying due to low birth rates, your societal evolutionary benefit argument fails. If anything, the trend says they are on a path to extinction.TexasScientist said:Why do you believe that? People tend to live by their culturally imposed rules. The areas around the world that have the most chaos and violence are those with religious based law. The areas where the quality of life is highest, in terms of happiness and violence, are the least religious. The most violent countries around the world tend to be the most religious. The Bible Belt in this country has high crime rates, low literacy rates, and lowest per capita income. Finland, Norway, Netherlands, and Denmark are the happiest and least religious. They're not nihilistic and suicidal.Doc Holliday said:
A non religious society will be nihilistic and suicidal.
Morals would decay and change rapidly.
Society would break down as religion is used to herd the sheep (in a good manner). Without it...complete chaos.
And no doubt those nations are only in their current positions because of the sacrifices of others.
BaylorFTW said:If you are going to claim Jesus did not come for the Gentiles as well as the Jews. You are going to need to explain why Jesus helped the Canaanite woman's daughter. You will have to explain why the Ethiopian eunuch was allowed to convert along with the Roman centurion Cornelius. Not to mention you will have to prove that Paul was a liar when he said otherwise in Galatians 3:28-29 and Colossians 3:11. You will also have to explain away John 3:16 and Genesis 12:3. And you will have to explain other things as well.TexasScientist said:
Didn't Jesus begin his ministry and end his ministry preaching to the Israelites? The same ones to whom supposedly was given the laws of the OT? You don't have those sacrifices today in the Judeo-Christian traditions, except for some, because their moral views have changed concomitant with time and convenience.
For Jews, the sacrifices ended with the destruction of the temple. No temple to do sacrifices. But Christians believe Jesus was their sacrifice as the lamb of God. He was the blood sacrifice for the new covenant. This is partly why Christians don't follow the prior dietary and governmental laws given in the Old Testament. Jesus fulfilled those laws.
It has nothing to do with a change in morality. That is an example of applying modern ideas to the past culture.No, you are failing to see the difference between the crime and punishment. The crime is wrong regardless of the time and place because it is immoral. However, the punishment can vary depending on the culture and its structure. We don't stone kids because we are not Jews under a Jewish theocracy. But we still discipline disrespectful kids. And in examples where "Christians" tolerate a change in morality, they are not living by the faith. It is not immoral to discipline disrespectful children or to view adultery as a moral wrong. Your issue is you think some of the punishments were too severe but that is just your subjective opinion.TexasScientist said:
So what you're advocating is moral relativism. It's ok to stone one's child for disrespect, or a woman caught in adultery under God's law to the Jews, or it is implied by God that you shouldn't stone a woman unless you are without sin. It is right in one scenario, but may be wrong in another. In my view, it is immoral in either case. A consistently moral god would have never condoned stoning in the first place. What you are essentially advocating is for morals given and enforced by a theocracy.God's morals are absolute and not subjective. You are making a lot of assertions here but I will just challenge this last one. Prove to us that there would be a lot less chaos in the Middle East if they embraced evidence based humanistic beliefs.TexasScientist said:
Everyone's morals are subjective, flexible and can change with time and culture. Christianity is no different. What is acceptable has changed with time. The practice of stoning is a good example. U. S. Christians embracing of Donald Trump is another. Evidence based morality, taking into consideration harm and the well being of others, leaves you in the position to improve with better knowledge. There would be a lot less chaos in the Middle East if they embraced evidence based humanistic beliefs.I would suggest your read my post and this post again because you are not getting it for some reason.TexasScientist said:
How is it moral to stone someone as punishment on the one hand, and immoral to stone them on the other? It is either immoral or not. Yahweh is morally inconsistent.As a Christian, Jesus tells us the second commandment above all others is to love your neighbor as thyself. Tell me how I can justify chattel slavery, rape and torturing of small children for fun in that context. Also, you are misunderstanding Paul's message in the book of Philemon regarding slavery and not taking into account the circumstances of them being under the Roman empire where slavery was commonplace.TexasScientist said:
Rather, you have determined slavery, and rape and torturing small children is wrong and have projected those morals onto Yahweh. When, in fact, the OT and NT both condone slavery. There is no biblical condemnation of slavery. In the OT Yahweh not only condones rape and torturing small children, but actually orders it. This is supposedly the same god. Today most Jews and Christians would consider these practices immoral. Did religion, god, or both change? Supposedly, the same god is the god of Islam, but I don't need to go there to make the point.
God's morality does not change. Men may fail to honor his morality. Christians don't believe the god of Islam is God. They believe Allah was a demon and Muhammad was a false prophet.Ok, prove it. Where did the objective morality come from and why does it exist if there was not an ultimate lawgiver?TexasScientist said:
In no way does it follow that if objective morality exists, then there must be an ultimate lawgiver or god. They do not have to be related at all.
You're missing my point. It's not about Jesus message to both Jews and Gentiles. Didn't Jesus, the unchanging deity, preach a different moral code that the law is no longer moral - i.e. that it is no longer moral to stone someone to death? Or was he just preaching situational morals, and that stoning is still a valid option? After all the Jews and Christians still embrace the OT as God's word and direction, yet they pick and choose what they want in order to conform to what is morally acceptable today. Or, did God change his mind?Quote:
If you are going to claim Jesus did not come for the Gentiles as well as the Jews. You are going to need to explain why Jesus helped the Canaanite woman's daughter. You will have to explain why the Ethiopian eunuch was allowed to convert along with the Roman centurion Cornelius. Not to mention you will have to prove that Paul was a liar when he said otherwise in Galatians 3:28-29 and Colossians 3:11. You will also have to explain away John 3:16 and Genesis 12:3. And you will have to explain other things as well.
For Jews, the sacrifices ended with the destruction of the temple. No temple to do sacrifices. But Christians believe Jesus was their sacrifice as the lamb of God. He was the blood sacrifice for the new covenant. This is partly why Christians don't follow the prior dietary and governmental laws given in the Old Testament. Jesus fulfilled those laws.
It has nothing to do with a change in morality. That is an example of applying modern ideas to the past culture.
Crime and punishment is not necessarily the issue. If your god is morally consistent, why is it morally ok to stone someone for adultery or parental disrespect, and yet in the case of the adulteress brought to Jesus, he overturns stoning her? Don't Christians believe the OT is God's true word, and is valid for instruction, validation, and reproof? Isn't the God of Abraham unchanging? Is it still ok stone someone for violation of Biblical law, or did God change his mind? Clearly, the god of Abraham is morally inconsistent with the Jews and Christians, not to mention Muslims. The Bible, from cover to cover, is morally inconsistent and contradictory. And yes, moral punishment often depends upon culture and its structure. Culture and structure is a product of men (sometimes women). That's why it is important that morality should be humanistic science of morality benchmarks, as opposed to theocratic (possibly arbitrarily) derived morals based upon some cleric, prophet, evangelist, or clergy's interpretation and pronouncement of divine revelation to their particular brand of mythology.Quote:
No, you are failing to see the difference between the crime and punishment. The crime is wrong regardless of the time and place because it is immoral. However, the punishment can vary depending on the culture and its structure. We don't stone kids because we are not Jews under a Jewish theocracy. But we still discipline disrespectful kids. And in examples where "Christians" tolerate a change in morality, they are not living by the faith. It is not immoral to discipline disrespectful children or to view adultery as a moral wrong. Your issue is you think some of the punishments were too severe but that is just your subjective opinion.
Of course God's morals are subjective and not absolute. The adulteress is a great example, otherwise he would have ordered her to be stoned. The best evidence is the countries that are not theocracies have greater regard for human rights. Show me a theocracy that is considered a monument to human rights.Quote:
God's morals are absolute and not subjective. You are making a lot of assertions here but I will just challenge this last one. Prove to us that there would be a lot less chaos in the Middle East if they embraced evidence based humanistic beliefs.
That's my point. The god of the OT condones those things, and even orders it. The god of the NT, never condemns slavery either. It is considered an accepted part of the culture and as you say commonplace. Why didn't a moral god outright condemn slavery?Quote:
As a Christian, Jesus tells us the second commandment above all others is to love your neighbor as thyself. Tell me how I can justify chattel slavery, rape and torturing of small children for fun in that context. Also, you are misunderstanding Paul's message in the book of Philemon regarding slavery and not taking into account the circumstances of them being under the Roman empire where slavery was commonplace.
God's morality does not change. Men may fail to honor his morality. Christians don't believe the god of Islam is God. They believe Allah was a demon and Muhammad was a false prophet.
God's morality is unchanging only in the aspect his morality is inconsistent. Christians may or may not believe the god of Islam is god, but it is clear the god of Islam is in fact the same god of the Jews, which presumably is the god of Christians. Although, among early Christians, there was to some a question about whether the god of the Jews and Christians were the same. There is no evidence for demons, much less that Allah or Yahweh for that matter is a demon. Although, there is plenty of evidence they are myths.
Morality is a product of evolutionary psychology. It comes from the cultural need to provide stability, and order within large groups. Objective morality is empirically derived from a humanistic science of morality approach, taking into consideration the well being of others. Do no harm.Quote:
Ok, prove it. Where did the objective morality come from and why does it exist if there was not an ultimate lawgiver?
Because overpopulation never happens in non religious cultures....Good grief.TexasScientist said:Although I think your argument is weak, the rest of the planet could use lower birth rates. Maybe they won't face the consequences of religiously induced overpopulation. They may have an evolutionary advantage.ATL Bear said:Given those same countries/cultures you extol are dying due to low birth rates, your societal evolutionary benefit argument fails. If anything, the trend says they are on a path to extinction.TexasScientist said:Why do you believe that? People tend to live by their culturally imposed rules. The areas around the world that have the most chaos and violence are those with religious based law. The areas where the quality of life is highest, in terms of happiness and violence, are the least religious. The most violent countries around the world tend to be the most religious. The Bible Belt in this country has high crime rates, low literacy rates, and lowest per capita income. Finland, Norway, Netherlands, and Denmark are the happiest and least religious. They're not nihilistic and suicidal.Doc Holliday said:
A non religious society will be nihilistic and suicidal.
Morals would decay and change rapidly.
Society would break down as religion is used to herd the sheep (in a good manner). Without it...complete chaos.
The argument of evolutionary advantage with egalitarianism or humanism is absolute bunk. Social engineering and evolution are not the same, and are independent in their origins.
God's "morals" are the same, and absolute. It's the punishment for breaking his "morals" that may change. Before Jesus came, stoning was the punishment, as ordered by God. Now that Jesus was there, it was he himself who was to take the punishment for her, on the cross. Jesus was now going to pay the price for the sin, instead of the sinner. That's the message of the gospel, and you missed it.TexasScientist said:BaylorFTW said:TexasScientist said:
Of course God's morals are subjective and not absolute. The adulteress is a great example, otherwise he would have ordered her to be stoned.
You're the one who implied that non-religious cultures were "dying due to low birth rates," not me. I just carried your thoughts out to a possible conclusion. I didn't say social engineering and evolution were the same.ATL Bear said:Because overpopulation never happens in non religious cultures....Good grief.TexasScientist said:Although I think your argument is weak, the rest of the planet could use lower birth rates. Maybe they won't face the consequences of religiously induced overpopulation. They may have an evolutionary advantage.ATL Bear said:Given those same countries/cultures you extol are dying due to low birth rates, your societal evolutionary benefit argument fails. If anything, the trend says they are on a path to extinction.TexasScientist said:Why do you believe that? People tend to live by their culturally imposed rules. The areas around the world that have the most chaos and violence are those with religious based law. The areas where the quality of life is highest, in terms of happiness and violence, are the least religious. The most violent countries around the world tend to be the most religious. The Bible Belt in this country has high crime rates, low literacy rates, and lowest per capita income. Finland, Norway, Netherlands, and Denmark are the happiest and least religious. They're not nihilistic and suicidal.Doc Holliday said:
A non religious society will be nihilistic and suicidal.
Morals would decay and change rapidly.
Society would break down as religion is used to herd the sheep (in a good manner). Without it...complete chaos.
The argument of evolutionary advantage with egalitarianism or humanism is absolute bunk. Social engineering and evolution are not the same, and are independent in their origins.
How are God's morals the same and absolute? If they were the same and absolute, he would never have condoned stoning in the first place. He would never have created a "sinful" world where stoning or sacrifice was even needed for atonement. An all loving moral god wouldn't have created a world of pain and suffering. He would have just created the state of the paradise hereafter, from the very beginning. It's not moral for god to sacrifice his son when it's unnecessary to begin with. It's simply not rational and begs of myth.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:God's "morals" are the same, and absolute. It's the punishment for breaking his "morals" that may change. Before Jesus came, stoning was the punishment, as ordered by God. Now that Jesus was there, it was he himself who was to take the punishment for her, on the cross. Jesus was now going to pay the price for the sin, instead of the sinner. That's the message of the gospel, and you missed it.TexasScientist said:BaylorFTW said:TexasScientist said:
Of course God's morals are subjective and not absolute. The adulteress is a great example, otherwise he would have ordered her to be stoned.
You're the one implying evolutionary advantage or origin of human moral behavior. You've even sloganized your preferred one with "do no harm".TexasScientist said:You're the one who implied that non-religious cultures were "dying due to low birth rates," not me. I just carried your thoughts out to a possible conclusion. I didn't say social engineering and evolution were the same.ATL Bear said:Because overpopulation never happens in non religious cultures....Good grief.TexasScientist said:Although I think your argument is weak, the rest of the planet could use lower birth rates. Maybe they won't face the consequences of religiously induced overpopulation. They may have an evolutionary advantage.ATL Bear said:Given those same countries/cultures you extol are dying due to low birth rates, your societal evolutionary benefit argument fails. If anything, the trend says they are on a path to extinction.TexasScientist said:Why do you believe that? People tend to live by their culturally imposed rules. The areas around the world that have the most chaos and violence are those with religious based law. The areas where the quality of life is highest, in terms of happiness and violence, are the least religious. The most violent countries around the world tend to be the most religious. The Bible Belt in this country has high crime rates, low literacy rates, and lowest per capita income. Finland, Norway, Netherlands, and Denmark are the happiest and least religious. They're not nihilistic and suicidal.Doc Holliday said:
A non religious society will be nihilistic and suicidal.
Morals would decay and change rapidly.
Society would break down as religion is used to herd the sheep (in a good manner). Without it...complete chaos.
The argument of evolutionary advantage with egalitarianism or humanism is absolute bunk. Social engineering and evolution are not the same, and are independent in their origins.
What I find especially amusing, is how quash and TexasScientist don't even bother to define what constitutes good, harm, or moral. Purely subjective from their POV.ATL Bear said:You're the one implying evolutionary advantage or origin of human moral behavior. You've even sloganized your preferred one with "do no harm".TexasScientist said:You're the one who implied that non-religious cultures were "dying due to low birth rates," not me. I just carried your thoughts out to a possible conclusion. I didn't say social engineering and evolution were the same.ATL Bear said:Because overpopulation never happens in non religious cultures....Good grief.TexasScientist said:Although I think your argument is weak, the rest of the planet could use lower birth rates. Maybe they won't face the consequences of religiously induced overpopulation. They may have an evolutionary advantage.ATL Bear said:Given those same countries/cultures you extol are dying due to low birth rates, your societal evolutionary benefit argument fails. If anything, the trend says they are on a path to extinction.TexasScientist said:Why do you believe that? People tend to live by their culturally imposed rules. The areas around the world that have the most chaos and violence are those with religious based law. The areas where the quality of life is highest, in terms of happiness and violence, are the least religious. The most violent countries around the world tend to be the most religious. The Bible Belt in this country has high crime rates, low literacy rates, and lowest per capita income. Finland, Norway, Netherlands, and Denmark are the happiest and least religious. They're not nihilistic and suicidal.Doc Holliday said:
A non religious society will be nihilistic and suicidal.
Morals would decay and change rapidly.
Society would break down as religion is used to herd the sheep (in a good manner). Without it...complete chaos.
The argument of evolutionary advantage with egalitarianism or humanism is absolute bunk. Social engineering and evolution are not the same, and are independent in their origins.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Oldbear83 said:What I find especially amusing, is how quash and TexasScientist don't even bother to define what constitutes good, harm, or moral. Purely subjective from their POV.ATL Bear said:You're the one implying evolutionary advantage or origin of human moral behavior. You've even sloganized your preferred one with "do no harm".TexasScientist said:You're the one who implied that non-religious cultures were "dying due to low birth rates," not me. I just carried your thoughts out to a possible conclusion. I didn't say social engineering and evolution were the same.ATL Bear said:Because overpopulation never happens in non religious cultures....Good grief.TexasScientist said:Although I think your argument is weak, the rest of the planet could use lower birth rates. Maybe they won't face the consequences of religiously induced overpopulation. They may have an evolutionary advantage.ATL Bear said:Given those same countries/cultures you extol are dying due to low birth rates, your societal evolutionary benefit argument fails. If anything, the trend says they are on a path to extinction.TexasScientist said:Why do you believe that? People tend to live by their culturally imposed rules. The areas around the world that have the most chaos and violence are those with religious based law. The areas where the quality of life is highest, in terms of happiness and violence, are the least religious. The most violent countries around the world tend to be the most religious. The Bible Belt in this country has high crime rates, low literacy rates, and lowest per capita income. Finland, Norway, Netherlands, and Denmark are the happiest and least religious. They're not nihilistic and suicidal.Doc Holliday said:
A non religious society will be nihilistic and suicidal.
Morals would decay and change rapidly.
Society would break down as religion is used to herd the sheep (in a good manner). Without it...complete chaos.
The argument of evolutionary advantage with egalitarianism or humanism is absolute bunk. Social engineering and evolution are not the same, and are independent in their origins.
This is my take on their positions, as well. No basis in anything outside of personal opinion which they attempt to pass off as somehow different from religion or myth. Ironic.
Slavery was addressed in Philemon, where Paul instructed Philemon to accept his runaway slave as "a brother beloved." Treating a slave as a "brother beloved" would necessarily entail freeing him, and tradition tells us that Onesimus was in fact freed and served as the bishop of Byzantium.
Christianity came to change people's hearts, not to overthrow existing society. If your question is why Paul didn't write "slaves, revolt against your masters, so you can all be crucified by the Romans," that question would appear to answer itself.
Christianity came to change people's hearts, not to overthrow existing society. If your question is why Paul didn't write "slaves, revolt against your masters, so you can all be crucified by the Romans," that question would appear to answer itself.
Again, there is a difference between the evolution of the need for a system of morals, and the determination of what those morals should be. Social engineering and evolution are not the same. Doing no harm is an application of a system of morals to an evolutionary need.ATL Bear said:You're the one implying evolutionary advantage or origin of human moral behavior. You've even sloganized your preferred one with "do no harm".TexasScientist said:You're the one who implied that non-religious cultures were "dying due to low birth rates," not me. I just carried your thoughts out to a possible conclusion. I didn't say social engineering and evolution were the same.ATL Bear said:Because overpopulation never happens in non religious cultures....Good grief.TexasScientist said:Although I think your argument is weak, the rest of the planet could use lower birth rates. Maybe they won't face the consequences of religiously induced overpopulation. They may have an evolutionary advantage.ATL Bear said:Given those same countries/cultures you extol are dying due to low birth rates, your societal evolutionary benefit argument fails. If anything, the trend says they are on a path to extinction.TexasScientist said:Why do you believe that? People tend to live by their culturally imposed rules. The areas around the world that have the most chaos and violence are those with religious based law. The areas where the quality of life is highest, in terms of happiness and violence, are the least religious. The most violent countries around the world tend to be the most religious. The Bible Belt in this country has high crime rates, low literacy rates, and lowest per capita income. Finland, Norway, Netherlands, and Denmark are the happiest and least religious. They're not nihilistic and suicidal.Doc Holliday said:
A non religious society will be nihilistic and suicidal.
Morals would decay and change rapidly.
Society would break down as religion is used to herd the sheep (in a good manner). Without it...complete chaos.
The argument of evolutionary advantage with egalitarianism or humanism is absolute bunk. Social engineering and evolution are not the same, and are independent in their origins.
We don't have to define them. Go to Webster's Dictionary on the English language, if you need a definition. It's all defined there for us.Oldbear83 said:What I find especially amusing, is how quash and TexasScientist don't even bother to define what constitutes good, harm, or moral. Purely subjective from their POV.ATL Bear said:You're the one implying evolutionary advantage or origin of human moral behavior. You've even sloganized your preferred one with "do no harm".TexasScientist said:You're the one who implied that non-religious cultures were "dying due to low birth rates," not me. I just carried your thoughts out to a possible conclusion. I didn't say social engineering and evolution were the same.ATL Bear said:Because overpopulation never happens in non religious cultures....Good grief.TexasScientist said:Although I think your argument is weak, the rest of the planet could use lower birth rates. Maybe they won't face the consequences of religiously induced overpopulation. They may have an evolutionary advantage.ATL Bear said:Given those same countries/cultures you extol are dying due to low birth rates, your societal evolutionary benefit argument fails. If anything, the trend says they are on a path to extinction.TexasScientist said:Why do you believe that? People tend to live by their culturally imposed rules. The areas around the world that have the most chaos and violence are those with religious based law. The areas where the quality of life is highest, in terms of happiness and violence, are the least religious. The most violent countries around the world tend to be the most religious. The Bible Belt in this country has high crime rates, low literacy rates, and lowest per capita income. Finland, Norway, Netherlands, and Denmark are the happiest and least religious. They're not nihilistic and suicidal.Doc Holliday said:
A non religious society will be nihilistic and suicidal.
Morals would decay and change rapidly.
Society would break down as religion is used to herd the sheep (in a good manner). Without it...complete chaos.
The argument of evolutionary advantage with egalitarianism or humanism is absolute bunk. Social engineering and evolution are not the same, and are independent in their origins.
Personal opinion formed from a basis in objective evidence, as opposed to a personal opinion formed from a basis in faith of ancient authors who were extremely ignorant about the natural laws of the Universe.curtpenn said:Oldbear83 said:What I find especially amusing, is how quash and TexasScientist don't even bother to define what constitutes good, harm, or moral. Purely subjective from their POV.ATL Bear said:You're the one implying evolutionary advantage or origin of human moral behavior. You've even sloganized your preferred one with "do no harm".TexasScientist said:You're the one who implied that non-religious cultures were "dying due to low birth rates," not me. I just carried your thoughts out to a possible conclusion. I didn't say social engineering and evolution were the same.ATL Bear said:Because overpopulation never happens in non religious cultures....Good grief.TexasScientist said:Although I think your argument is weak, the rest of the planet could use lower birth rates. Maybe they won't face the consequences of religiously induced overpopulation. They may have an evolutionary advantage.ATL Bear said:Given those same countries/cultures you extol are dying due to low birth rates, your societal evolutionary benefit argument fails. If anything, the trend says they are on a path to extinction.TexasScientist said:Why do you believe that? People tend to live by their culturally imposed rules. The areas around the world that have the most chaos and violence are those with religious based law. The areas where the quality of life is highest, in terms of happiness and violence, are the least religious. The most violent countries around the world tend to be the most religious. The Bible Belt in this country has high crime rates, low literacy rates, and lowest per capita income. Finland, Norway, Netherlands, and Denmark are the happiest and least religious. They're not nihilistic and suicidal.Doc Holliday said:
A non religious society will be nihilistic and suicidal.
Morals would decay and change rapidly.
Society would break down as religion is used to herd the sheep (in a good manner). Without it...complete chaos.
The argument of evolutionary advantage with egalitarianism or humanism is absolute bunk. Social engineering and evolution are not the same, and are independent in their origins.
This is my take on their positions, as well. No basis in anything outside of personal opinion which they attempt to pass off as somehow different from religion or myth. Ironic.
You're reading and projecting what you want Paul's text to say. If Paul condemned slavery, he would have outright said so, the same as he did on other subjects. His writings don't indicate he was particularly scared of the Romans. He could have condemned slavery without calling for outright revolt. Jesus could have easily condemned slavery. Why would Jesus rely on Paul to cryptically hint at it for him years later? Certainly it could have been condemned in the Mosaic laws. That's a far reach.JXL said:
Slavery was addressed in Philemon, where Paul instructed Philemon to accept his runaway slave as "a brother beloved." Treating a slave as a "brother beloved" would necessarily entail freeing him, and tradition tells us that Onesimus was in fact freed and served as the bishop of Byzantium.
Christianity came to change people's hearts, not to overthrow existing society. If your question is why Paul didn't write "slaves, revolt against your masters, so you can all be crucified by the Romans," that question would appear to answer itself.
Translation - TS doesn't want to admit his bias.TexasScientist said:We don't have to define them. Go to Webster's Dictionary on the English language, if you need a definition. It's all defined there for us.Oldbear83 said:What I find especially amusing, is how quash and TexasScientist don't even bother to define what constitutes good, harm, or moral. Purely subjective from their POV.ATL Bear said:You're the one implying evolutionary advantage or origin of human moral behavior. You've even sloganized your preferred one with "do no harm".TexasScientist said:You're the one who implied that non-religious cultures were "dying due to low birth rates," not me. I just carried your thoughts out to a possible conclusion. I didn't say social engineering and evolution were the same.ATL Bear said:Because overpopulation never happens in non religious cultures....Good grief.TexasScientist said:Although I think your argument is weak, the rest of the planet could use lower birth rates. Maybe they won't face the consequences of religiously induced overpopulation. They may have an evolutionary advantage.ATL Bear said:Given those same countries/cultures you extol are dying due to low birth rates, your societal evolutionary benefit argument fails. If anything, the trend says they are on a path to extinction.TexasScientist said:Why do you believe that? People tend to live by their culturally imposed rules. The areas around the world that have the most chaos and violence are those with religious based law. The areas where the quality of life is highest, in terms of happiness and violence, are the least religious. The most violent countries around the world tend to be the most religious. The Bible Belt in this country has high crime rates, low literacy rates, and lowest per capita income. Finland, Norway, Netherlands, and Denmark are the happiest and least religious. They're not nihilistic and suicidal.Doc Holliday said:
A non religious society will be nihilistic and suicidal.
Morals would decay and change rapidly.
Society would break down as religion is used to herd the sheep (in a good manner). Without it...complete chaos.
The argument of evolutionary advantage with egalitarianism or humanism is absolute bunk. Social engineering and evolution are not the same, and are independent in their origins.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
I understand. You can't get away from personal opinion no matter how you attempt to frame it. But, yeah, "science"...TexasScientist said:Personal opinion formed from a basis in objective evidence, as opposed to a personal opinion formed from a basis in faith of ancient authors who were extremely ignorant about the natural laws of the Universe.curtpenn said:Oldbear83 said:What I find especially amusing, is how quash and TexasScientist don't even bother to define what constitutes good, harm, or moral. Purely subjective from their POV.ATL Bear said:You're the one implying evolutionary advantage or origin of human moral behavior. You've even sloganized your preferred one with "do no harm".TexasScientist said:You're the one who implied that non-religious cultures were "dying due to low birth rates," not me. I just carried your thoughts out to a possible conclusion. I didn't say social engineering and evolution were the same.ATL Bear said:Because overpopulation never happens in non religious cultures....Good grief.TexasScientist said:Although I think your argument is weak, the rest of the planet could use lower birth rates. Maybe they won't face the consequences of religiously induced overpopulation. They may have an evolutionary advantage.ATL Bear said:Given those same countries/cultures you extol are dying due to low birth rates, your societal evolutionary benefit argument fails. If anything, the trend says they are on a path to extinction.TexasScientist said:Why do you believe that? People tend to live by their culturally imposed rules. The areas around the world that have the most chaos and violence are those with religious based law. The areas where the quality of life is highest, in terms of happiness and violence, are the least religious. The most violent countries around the world tend to be the most religious. The Bible Belt in this country has high crime rates, low literacy rates, and lowest per capita income. Finland, Norway, Netherlands, and Denmark are the happiest and least religious. They're not nihilistic and suicidal.Doc Holliday said:
A non religious society will be nihilistic and suicidal.
Morals would decay and change rapidly.
Society would break down as religion is used to herd the sheep (in a good manner). Without it...complete chaos.
The argument of evolutionary advantage with egalitarianism or humanism is absolute bunk. Social engineering and evolution are not the same, and are independent in their origins.
This is my take on their positions, as well. No basis in anything outside of personal opinion which they attempt to pass off as somehow different from religion or myth. Ironic.
Morals are mostly a restraint on natural tendency. Innate cooperation is not a moral but a survival instinct, and natural altruism does not exist. So I'm not sure what you are referencing when you say "the evolution of the need for a moral system". There is no evolutionary need for human morality in an atheist universe. At least no scientific or evolutionary need. We could off our entire species and all others on this planet tomorrow and we wouldn't even register the most microscopic blip on the universe's evolutionary development cycle.TexasScientist said:Again, there is a difference between the evolution of the need for a system of morals, and the determination of what those morals should be. Social engineering and evolution are not the same. Doing no harm is an application of a system of morals to an evolutionary need.ATL Bear said:You're the one implying evolutionary advantage or origin of human moral behavior. You've even sloganized your preferred one with "do no harm".TexasScientist said:You're the one who implied that non-religious cultures were "dying due to low birth rates," not me. I just carried your thoughts out to a possible conclusion. I didn't say social engineering and evolution were the same.ATL Bear said:Because overpopulation never happens in non religious cultures....Good grief.TexasScientist said:Although I think your argument is weak, the rest of the planet could use lower birth rates. Maybe they won't face the consequences of religiously induced overpopulation. They may have an evolutionary advantage.ATL Bear said:Given those same countries/cultures you extol are dying due to low birth rates, your societal evolutionary benefit argument fails. If anything, the trend says they are on a path to extinction.TexasScientist said:Why do you believe that? People tend to live by their culturally imposed rules. The areas around the world that have the most chaos and violence are those with religious based law. The areas where the quality of life is highest, in terms of happiness and violence, are the least religious. The most violent countries around the world tend to be the most religious. The Bible Belt in this country has high crime rates, low literacy rates, and lowest per capita income. Finland, Norway, Netherlands, and Denmark are the happiest and least religious. They're not nihilistic and suicidal.Doc Holliday said:
A non religious society will be nihilistic and suicidal.
Morals would decay and change rapidly.
Society would break down as religion is used to herd the sheep (in a good manner). Without it...complete chaos.
The argument of evolutionary advantage with egalitarianism or humanism is absolute bunk. Social engineering and evolution are not the same, and are independent in their origins.
What I am saying is that evolutionary psychology is at play. When you have large groups, there is an evolutionary advantage to those who find ways to cooperate within a moral framework. For instance, there is an evolutionary need for a male to know that the energy and resources he is accumulating to care and feed his mate and offspring are in fact going to his genetic progeny. A female has a need to know that the resources the male earns are not going to be diverted away from her offspring to care for offspring of another female.
I agree with you that the Universe doesn't 'care' one whit about our species, or any other life form on this planet, or anywhere else for that matter. We are insignificant, and seemingly inconsequential as a planet, and as a carbon based life form, in the grand scheme. At some point life will be unsustainable on this planet, and our only hope to perpetuate our species, or some AI semblance of our species will be to transport it elsewhere.
I agree with you that the Universe doesn't 'care' one whit about our species, or any other life form on this planet, or anywhere else for that matter. We are insignificant, and seemingly inconsequential as a planet, and as a carbon based life form, in the grand scheme. At some point life will be unsustainable on this planet, and our only hope to perpetuate our species, or some AI semblance of our species will be to transport it elsewhere.
Funny how y'all misconstrue our position. A well developed objective set of morals, not all that different in the end form the one that religions evolved.curtpenn said:Oldbear83 said:What I find especially amusing, is how quash and TexasScientist don't even bother to define what constitutes good, harm, or moral. Purely subjective from their POV.ATL Bear said:You're the one implying evolutionary advantage or origin of human moral behavior. You've even sloganized your preferred one with "do no harm".TexasScientist said:You're the one who implied that non-religious cultures were "dying due to low birth rates," not me. I just carried your thoughts out to a possible conclusion. I didn't say social engineering and evolution were the same.ATL Bear said:Because overpopulation never happens in non religious cultures....Good grief.TexasScientist said:Although I think your argument is weak, the rest of the planet could use lower birth rates. Maybe they won't face the consequences of religiously induced overpopulation. They may have an evolutionary advantage.ATL Bear said:Given those same countries/cultures you extol are dying due to low birth rates, your societal evolutionary benefit argument fails. If anything, the trend says they are on a path to extinction.TexasScientist said:Why do you believe that? People tend to live by their culturally imposed rules. The areas around the world that have the most chaos and violence are those with religious based law. The areas where the quality of life is highest, in terms of happiness and violence, are the least religious. The most violent countries around the world tend to be the most religious. The Bible Belt in this country has high crime rates, low literacy rates, and lowest per capita income. Finland, Norway, Netherlands, and Denmark are the happiest and least religious. They're not nihilistic and suicidal.Doc Holliday said:
A non religious society will be nihilistic and suicidal.
Morals would decay and change rapidly.
Society would break down as religion is used to herd the sheep (in a good manner). Without it...complete chaos.
The argument of evolutionary advantage with egalitarianism or humanism is absolute bunk. Social engineering and evolution are not the same, and are independent in their origins.
This is my take on their positions, as well. No basis in anything outside of personal opinion which they attempt to pass off as somehow different from religion or myth. Ironic.
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
Different from religion how? Personal opinion is why there are umpteen dozen denominations.curtpenn said:I understand. You can't get away from personal opinion no matter how you attempt to frame it. But, yeah, "science"...TexasScientist said:Personal opinion formed from a basis in objective evidence, as opposed to a personal opinion formed from a basis in faith of ancient authors who were extremely ignorant about the natural laws of the Universe.curtpenn said:Oldbear83 said:What I find especially amusing, is how quash and TexasScientist don't even bother to define what constitutes good, harm, or moral. Purely subjective from their POV.ATL Bear said:You're the one implying evolutionary advantage or origin of human moral behavior. You've even sloganized your preferred one with "do no harm".TexasScientist said:You're the one who implied that non-religious cultures were "dying due to low birth rates," not me. I just carried your thoughts out to a possible conclusion. I didn't say social engineering and evolution were the same.ATL Bear said:Because overpopulation never happens in non religious cultures....Good grief.TexasScientist said:Although I think your argument is weak, the rest of the planet could use lower birth rates. Maybe they won't face the consequences of religiously induced overpopulation. They may have an evolutionary advantage.ATL Bear said:Given those same countries/cultures you extol are dying due to low birth rates, your societal evolutionary benefit argument fails. If anything, the trend says they are on a path to extinction.TexasScientist said:Why do you believe that? People tend to live by their culturally imposed rules. The areas around the world that have the most chaos and violence are those with religious based law. The areas where the quality of life is highest, in terms of happiness and violence, are the least religious. The most violent countries around the world tend to be the most religious. The Bible Belt in this country has high crime rates, low literacy rates, and lowest per capita income. Finland, Norway, Netherlands, and Denmark are the happiest and least religious. They're not nihilistic and suicidal.Doc Holliday said:
A non religious society will be nihilistic and suicidal.
Morals would decay and change rapidly.
Society would break down as religion is used to herd the sheep (in a good manner). Without it...complete chaos.
The argument of evolutionary advantage with egalitarianism or humanism is absolute bunk. Social engineering and evolution are not the same, and are independent in their origins.
This is my take on their positions, as well. No basis in anything outside of personal opinion which they attempt to pass off as somehow different from religion or myth. Ironic.
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
Like I said, God's "morals" are the same and absolute- adultery is and always will be bad, for example. However, how God dealt with that sin is what changed after Jesus arrived. Changing the rules of punishment doesn't mean the morals have changed. It isn't wrong or inconsistent on God's part to do that. In fact, it's a gift that he did, and that is the gospel message.TexasScientist said:How are God's morals the same and absolute? If they were the same and absolute, he would never have condoned stoning in the first place. He would never have created a "sinful" world where stoning or sacrifice was even needed for atonement. An all loving moral god wouldn't have created a world of pain and suffering. He would have just created the state of the paradise hereafter, from the very beginning. It's not moral for god to sacrifice his son when it's unnecessary to begin with. It's simply not rational and begs of myth.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:God's "morals" are the same, and absolute. It's the punishment for breaking his "morals" that may change. Before Jesus came, stoning was the punishment, as ordered by God. Now that Jesus was there, it was he himself who was to take the punishment for her, on the cross. Jesus was now going to pay the price for the sin, instead of the sinner. That's the message of the gospel, and you missed it.TexasScientist said:BaylorFTW said:TexasScientist said:
Of course God's morals are subjective and not absolute. The adulteress is a great example, otherwise he would have ordered her to be stoned.
You seem to be changing your gripe, however. Your response above isn't about the consistency of God's "morals" but rather about why God allows evil in the first place. This has already been discussed between you and others in previous threads, so it doesn't need to be rehashed here. Go back and review their answers, which were very good.
Different in that religion doesn't claim to be scientific.quash said:Different from religion how? Personal opinion is why there are umpteen dozen denominations.curtpenn said:I understand. You can't get away from personal opinion no matter how you attempt to frame it. But, yeah, "science"...TexasScientist said:Personal opinion formed from a basis in objective evidence, as opposed to a personal opinion formed from a basis in faith of ancient authors who were extremely ignorant about the natural laws of the Universe.curtpenn said:Oldbear83 said:What I find especially amusing, is how quash and TexasScientist don't even bother to define what constitutes good, harm, or moral. Purely subjective from their POV.ATL Bear said:You're the one implying evolutionary advantage or origin of human moral behavior. You've even sloganized your preferred one with "do no harm".TexasScientist said:You're the one who implied that non-religious cultures were "dying due to low birth rates," not me. I just carried your thoughts out to a possible conclusion. I didn't say social engineering and evolution were the same.ATL Bear said:Because overpopulation never happens in non religious cultures....Good grief.TexasScientist said:Although I think your argument is weak, the rest of the planet could use lower birth rates. Maybe they won't face the consequences of religiously induced overpopulation. They may have an evolutionary advantage.ATL Bear said:Given those same countries/cultures you extol are dying due to low birth rates, your societal evolutionary benefit argument fails. If anything, the trend says they are on a path to extinction.TexasScientist said:Why do you believe that? People tend to live by their culturally imposed rules. The areas around the world that have the most chaos and violence are those with religious based law. The areas where the quality of life is highest, in terms of happiness and violence, are the least religious. The most violent countries around the world tend to be the most religious. The Bible Belt in this country has high crime rates, low literacy rates, and lowest per capita income. Finland, Norway, Netherlands, and Denmark are the happiest and least religious. They're not nihilistic and suicidal.Doc Holliday said:
A non religious society will be nihilistic and suicidal.
Morals would decay and change rapidly.
Society would break down as religion is used to herd the sheep (in a good manner). Without it...complete chaos.
The argument of evolutionary advantage with egalitarianism or humanism is absolute bunk. Social engineering and evolution are not the same, and are independent in their origins.
This is my take on their positions, as well. No basis in anything outside of personal opinion which they attempt to pass off as somehow different from religion or myth. Ironic.
It claims to be unchanging: see above.Sam Lowry said:Different in that religion doesn't claim to be scientific.quash said:Different from religion how? Personal opinion is why there are umpteen dozen denominations.curtpenn said:I understand. You can't get away from personal opinion no matter how you attempt to frame it. But, yeah, "science"...TexasScientist said:Personal opinion formed from a basis in objective evidence, as opposed to a personal opinion formed from a basis in faith of ancient authors who were extremely ignorant about the natural laws of the Universe.curtpenn said:Oldbear83 said:What I find especially amusing, is how quash and TexasScientist don't even bother to define what constitutes good, harm, or moral. Purely subjective from their POV.ATL Bear said:You're the one implying evolutionary advantage or origin of human moral behavior. You've even sloganized your preferred one with "do no harm".TexasScientist said:You're the one who implied that non-religious cultures were "dying due to low birth rates," not me. I just carried your thoughts out to a possible conclusion. I didn't say social engineering and evolution were the same.ATL Bear said:Because overpopulation never happens in non religious cultures....Good grief.TexasScientist said:Although I think your argument is weak, the rest of the planet could use lower birth rates. Maybe they won't face the consequences of religiously induced overpopulation. They may have an evolutionary advantage.ATL Bear said:Given those same countries/cultures you extol are dying due to low birth rates, your societal evolutionary benefit argument fails. If anything, the trend says they are on a path to extinction.TexasScientist said:Why do you believe that? People tend to live by their culturally imposed rules. The areas around the world that have the most chaos and violence are those with religious based law. The areas where the quality of life is highest, in terms of happiness and violence, are the least religious. The most violent countries around the world tend to be the most religious. The Bible Belt in this country has high crime rates, low literacy rates, and lowest per capita income. Finland, Norway, Netherlands, and Denmark are the happiest and least religious. They're not nihilistic and suicidal.Doc Holliday said:
A non religious society will be nihilistic and suicidal.
Morals would decay and change rapidly.
Society would break down as religion is used to herd the sheep (in a good manner). Without it...complete chaos.
The argument of evolutionary advantage with egalitarianism or humanism is absolute bunk. Social engineering and evolution are not the same, and are independent in their origins.
This is my take on their positions, as well. No basis in anything outside of personal opinion which they attempt to pass off as somehow different from religion or myth. Ironic.
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat