dimreepr Posted October 20 Share Posted October 20 14 hours ago, LuckyR said: Who is the "we"? Well it could be you, do you believe in bacteria? Do you think lightning is caused by angry gods? Do you believe that prisoners of war should be executed? I think you're probably morally superior. If you believe that you're being watched in everything you do, you have two choices: Be seen to make the correct moral choice. Or Wear a mask. The choice 'we' make often depends on the information we trust, rather than the moral correctness; especially when that correctness would disadvantage 'us'... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LuckyR Posted October 20 Share Posted October 20 5 hours ago, dimreepr said: If you believe that you're being watched in everything you do, you have two choices: Be seen to make the correct moral choice. Or Wear a mask. The choice 'we' make often depends on the information we trust, rather than the moral correctness; especially when that correctness would disadvantage 'us'... If you want to change the subject to why we're morally superior, your theory sounds reasonable, to be honest. But you've lost the previous argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted October 20 Share Posted October 20 “Be seen to make the correct moral choice.” If you are only making your choice to be seen making it, it suggests you don’t really want to make that choice. Is that morality? Or just fear? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Night FM Posted October 20 Author Share Posted October 20 (edited) On 10/18/2024 at 10:19 PM, Peterkin said: Please cite three of them. If I recall correctly, even Paul, who came along later and got appended to the NT, had no objection to slavery, which was common practice in Rome. While you're at it, show where the Bible forbids rape, incest, pandering and genocide. Off the top of my head. *God created man in his own image. *In Christ Jesus, there is no difference between slave and free. As far as a piece of specific text forbidding every specific thing under the sun, that would be impossible and impractical. And while I'm aware that not every specific thing which is considered immoral by society derives specifically from Biblical text, that doesn't mean that people can't make good arguments for it being immoral (e.x. rape, genocide, etc). Likewise, if someone wants to justify something, they could theoretically use the Bible to justify anything. (e.x. Polygamy exists in the Old Testament, and there were no formal age of consent laws in Biblical times, so someone could use the Bible to justify polygamy or child marriage), but that doesn't mean that most people would do so, or that sound arguments can be made against not doing so. 4 hours ago, LuckyR said: If you want to change the subject to why we're morally superior, your theory sounds reasonable, to be honest. But you've lost the previous argument. It's a moot point, because if one believed they were only morally accountable to themself, they could justify doing anything they wanted to (e.x. rape, murder, etc). Even if you claim that don't avoid those things out of "fear of God" but out of some higher sense of moral purpose, you're still appealing to a higher source of morality than yourself. You would just have trouble rationalizing what this is or where it comes from, since it's not something that could be verified (e.x. scientifically) beyond your own intuitions. Edited October 20 by Night FM -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted October 20 Share Posted October 20 10 minutes ago, Night FM said: As far as a piece of specific text forbidding every specific thing under the sun, that would be impossible and impractical. Why not slavery? We have pretty specific language about it in much shorter secular documents, because we consider it pretty important. There’s specific language about not having tattoos and not cutting your hair, not wearing clothes made with more than one kind of cloth, or planting more than one kind of seed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Night FM Posted October 20 Author Share Posted October 20 (edited) 3 minutes ago, swansont said: Why not slavery? We have pretty specific language about it in much shorter secular documents, because we consider it pretty important. There’s specific language about not having tattoos and not cutting your hair, not wearing clothes made with more than one kind of cloth, or planting more than one kind of seed. You're talking about the laws of Israel of the Old Testament (with the exception of "not cutting hair", which wasn't forbidden in the Old Testament to my knowledge. It was a recommendation Paul made in the New Testament). You can't just take bits and pieces out of context and treat it like an arbitrary set of rules that are completely removed from the source text. Edited October 20 by Night FM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted October 20 Share Posted October 20 21 minutes ago, Night FM said: You're talking about the laws of Israel of the Old Testament (with the exception of "not cutting hair", which wasn't forbidden in the Old Testament to my knowledge. Leviticus 19:27 Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard. 21 minutes ago, Night FM said: It was a recommendation Paul made in the New Testament). You can't just take bits and pieces out of context and treat it like an arbitrary set of rules that are completely removed from the source text. Oh? Isn’t Leviticus 18 and 19 just a list of rules set out by God? 35 minutes ago, Night FM said: Likewise, if someone wants to justify something, they could theoretically use the Bible to justify anything. And we’re back to the Bible not being a good source of morals Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
naitche Posted October 21 Share Posted October 21 2 hours ago, Night FM said: Off the top of my head. *God created man in his own image. It's a moot point, because if one believed they were only morally accountable to themself, they could justify doing anything they wanted to (e.x. rape, murder, etc). Even if you claim that don't avoid those things out of "fear of God" but out of some higher sense of moral purpose, you're still appealing to a higher source of morality than yourself. You would just have trouble rationalizing what this is or where it comes from, since it's not something that could be verified (e.x. scientifically) beyond your own intuitions. So how about ones objective Humanity? Its image we conform to. Its manifestation defined and supported by our individual actions in service to that objective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peterkin Posted October 21 Share Posted October 21 3 hours ago, Night FM said: As far as a piece of specific text forbidding every specific thing under the sun, that would be impossible and impractical. I asked for only one thing under the sun: slavery, which you claimed the bible had plenty of texts against. You haven't cited a single one. You made two unsupported statements. 3 hours ago, Night FM said: And while I'm aware that not every specific thing which is considered immoral by society derives specifically from Biblical text, that doesn't mean that people can't make good arguments for it being immoral (e.x. rape, genocide, etc). We can and do argue against those things. The Bible does not. 3 hours ago, Night FM said: Likewise, if someone wants to justify something, they could theoretically use the Bible to justify anything. (e.x. Polygamy exists in the Old Testament, and there were no formal age of consent laws in Biblical times, so someone could use the Bible to justify polygamy or child marriage) And some religious sects do. Not most people, and certainly not atheists. Secular legal codes do a much better job of spelling out what a society considers unacceptable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LuckyR Posted October 21 Share Posted October 21 8 hours ago, Night FM said: It's a moot point, because if one believed they were only morally accountable to themself, they could justify doing anything they wanted to (e.x. rape, murder, etc). Even if you claim that don't avoid those things out of "fear of God" but out of some higher sense of moral purpose, you're still appealing to a higher source of morality than yourself. You would just have trouble rationalizing what this is or where it comes from, since it's not something that could be verified (e.x. scientifically) beyond your own intuitions. Sure they "could". But when you look at what folks actually do, there's no statistically significant difference between the morality of the actions of atheists and theists within the same era, while there is a difference between folks of different eras. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted October 21 Share Posted October 21 18 hours ago, swansont said: “Be seen to make the correct moral choice.” If you are only making your choice to be seen making it, it suggests you don’t really want to make that choice. Is that morality? Or just fear? It suggests to me that I want to be liked and accepted, so I'm as nice as I know how to be; but if fear drives that choice, what's the difference? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peterkin Posted October 21 Share Posted October 21 11 minutes ago, dimreepr said: It suggests to me that I want to be liked and accepted, so I'm as nice as I know how to be; but if fear drives that choice, what's the difference? The difference is that fear is an emotion, not a moral choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted October 21 Share Posted October 21 12 minutes ago, Peterkin said: The difference is that fear is an emotion, not a moral choice. We're emotional being's, so what, every choice is an emotional one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted October 21 Share Posted October 21 16 hours ago, Night FM said: You can't just take bits and pieces out of context and treat it like an arbitrary set of rules that are completely removed from the source text. This seems EXACTLY like what most religions do. An atheist has the advantage of understanding why something is wrong, not being tainted by priests telling them it's OK to own slaves from another land, or that women are unclean, or that you'll be damned eternally if your beard's not square. We also aren't hobbled by threats and coercion. "The Lord will afflict your knees and legs with painful boils that cannot be cured, spreading from the soles of your feet to the top of your head" just shows us how INHUMAN actions are just wrong no matter who perpetrates the crime. Atheists have nothing to justify raping and pillaging in the name of a god over. We also don't suffer from the hypocrisy the religious often demonstrate wrt compassion and charity. And we don't suffer crises of faith where the foundations of our morality come into question. Being a decent human is a learned trait, and it's marred by the judgement most Christians impose on non-Christians. I argue that my morality isn't as fragile as yours, since it's based on what I've observed, not irrational fears about what hides from me and judges me and promises me eternal torture if I don't believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Night FM Posted October 21 Author Share Posted October 21 15 hours ago, swansont said: Leviticus 19:27 Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard. Oh? Isn’t Leviticus 18 and 19 just a list of rules set out by God? No, they were the laws of an ancient nation. You're talking them out of context. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted October 21 Share Posted October 21 1 hour ago, dimreepr said: It suggests to me that I want to be liked and accepted, so I'm as nice as I know how to be; but if fear drives that choice, what's the difference? To me, it means that the alleged niceness/morality is a facade - you’re not being nice because you’re a nice person - and your actions are driven by the fear. Which is actually moral: not harming someone because you’ll get in trouble, or not harming someone because you feel it’s wrong? 18 minutes ago, Night FM said: No, they were the laws of an ancient nation. You're talking them out of context. What’s the context? Why do a whole lot of people decide that some of those behaviors are wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted October 21 Share Posted October 21 2 hours ago, Night FM said: No, they were the laws of an ancient nation. You're talking them out of context. Rather than cherry-picking the ones you don't like? Do you enjoy your bacon, shellfish and rabbit? I don't blame you for glossing over the inconvenient laws. It seems pretty obvious that many were made without a hint of "divine guidance". My fave is from Deuteronomy, where you're fighting with another man and your wife intervenes to save you from a beating. If she grabs your privates, you're commanded to chop off her hand! 19 hours ago, Night FM said: Likewise, if someone wants to justify something, they could theoretically use the Bible to justify anything. So you agree it's a bad foundation for discerning right and wrong? For instance, I could make the case that Jesus was a petty, vindictive tyrant who went around cursing fig trees, withering them when he was hungry and they had no fruit, then told his disciples they could have that kind of power if they believed hard enough. Creepy, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Night FM Posted October 21 Author Share Posted October 21 (edited) 5 hours ago, swansont said: What’s the context? Why do a whole lot of people decide that some of those behaviors are wrong? The context is pretty simple. Those are laws of the ancient state of Israel. If some people decide they're wrong "in a vacuum" because they either didn't read or didn't understand the context, then that's heretical. The New Testament makes it pretty clear what the relevance of the Old Law is, and obviously there was no commandment to institute and enforce those laws into perpetuity. 2 hours ago, Phi for All said: Rather than cherry-picking the ones you don't like? Do you enjoy your bacon, shellfish and rabbit? No one is cherry-picking. Those are laws of an ancient nation, not perpetual commandments that apply "in a vacuum". No one is saying that any of the laws of the ancient state of Israel should be laws today in the developed world, and nothing in the New Testament indicates that they should or have any legal relevance outside of Israel. 2 hours ago, Phi for All said: I don't blame you for glossing over the inconvenient laws. It seems pretty obvious that many were made without a hint of "divine guidance". My fave is from Deuteronomy, where you're fighting with another man and your wife intervenes to save you from a beating. If she grabs your privates, you're commanded to chop off her hand! So you agree it's a bad foundation for discerning right and wrong? For instance, I could make the case that Jesus was a petty, vindictive tyrant who went around cursing fig trees, withering them when he was hungry and they had no fruit, then told his disciples they could have that kind of power if they believed hard enough. Creepy, right? If the foundation is based on not understanding the Bible to begin with, then it's not worth commenting on. See above. It's not my fault that people who claim to be "Christian" bastardize the Bible as atheists likewise do. Edited October 21 by Night FM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted October 21 Share Posted October 21 1 hour ago, Night FM said: If the foundation is based on not understanding the Bible to begin with, then it's not worth commenting on. See above. It's not my fault that people who claim to be "Christian" bastardize the Bible as atheists likewise do. Given the number of denominations of Christianity, I don’t think you can lay more than a tiny fraction of blame on atheists for having an interpretation. Get your own houses (all 45k+) in order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Night FM Posted October 21 Author Share Posted October 21 32 minutes ago, swansont said: Given the number of denominations of Christianity, I don’t think you can lay more than a tiny fraction of blame on atheists for having an interpretation. Get your own houses (all 45k+) in order. I'm curious how many of these denominations are predicated on simply reading the Bible in its entirety. I'll wager that most of them aren't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peterkin Posted October 22 Share Posted October 22 9 hours ago, dimreepr said: We're emotional being's, so what, every choice is an emotional one. You mean there is no morality, no pragmatism and no intellectual investigation? It's all just a big emotional fiction? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted October 22 Share Posted October 22 12 hours ago, Peterkin said: You mean there is no morality, no pragmatism and no intellectual investigation? It's all just a big emotional fiction? Not at all, it takes a great deal of training and understanding to dislocate our emotional response from what we perceived to be fair, there in lies justice. Morality is what 'we' subjectively call fairness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted October 22 Share Posted October 22 14 hours ago, Night FM said: I'm curious how many of these denominations are predicated on simply reading the Bible in its entirety. I'll wager that most of them aren't. Of course not, they're reading their own version... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peterkin Posted October 22 Share Posted October 22 2 hours ago, dimreepr said: Morality is what 'we' subjectively call fairness. So then, not all decisions are emotional? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted October 22 Share Posted October 22 7 minutes ago, Peterkin said: So then, not all decisions are emotional? which ones aren't? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now