Support NeoGAF

[Meus Renaissance]

It seems perfectly relevant to me.

Did Stalin have people killed because he was an atheist? Did his atheism somehow inspire him to create gulags? Or did he have people killed because was paranoid? And what of the millions who died not because of malice, but of ineptitude (e.g. people who starved as a result of state-planning that didn't plan all that well)? What did atheism have to do with their deaths?

Which of those are actually attributable to the atheism of the state or of the individual leaders of those states, even in part?

I'm not really seeing it, which makes it seem very relevant to me.

I remember Dawkin's making the exact same argument although he did later on assert that it wasn't a doctrine of faith, or lack of faith, that was the motivator but the lack of rationale and free thinking that often stemmed/stems from the blind faith religion often demands. No doubt some of those involved in religious wars in the past felt compelled to join the fighting because of their faith in God, but I think a comparable opposite to that is those that join wars in the name of nationalism/patriotism. Their country drafts them in with the usual propaganda to get them beating the war drum, and you fight for your country's goals regardless if they are just or moral in the greater context. If you take Dawkin's reasoning, then this would be comparable.

Believing in God doesn't mean you are any less of a thinker and being an atheist doesn't equate you to being a Dawkinsque-speaker or intellect.

Also, there is this misconception that religious wars were simply about sides killing each other because the other prayed differently or believed in God A instead of God B. It was always predominantly either about land, power or both. Something which you see play out till this day, except the distinguishing factor isn't faith but flags. I've read and seen re-enactments, that would make you struggle imagining greater examples of horrid brutality, committed in only the last 60 years in Eurasia and none of this under a blind belief of a creator, but out of just pure hatred for the race, ethnicity or even just the nationality.

Man has killed because he heard a voice from the sky. Man has killed because of love and heart break. Man has killed because his President has told him to. Man has killed because he was...bored. There seems to be a pattern at here; Man

 

[Hydranockz]

Believing in God doesn't mean you are any less of a thinker and being an atheist doesn't equate you to being a Dawkinsque-speaker or intellect.

This a million times over

 

[jdogmoney]

Slavery was as much a part of the 1st century as it was in Old testament and neither could be considered an "encouragement" by God. Slavery just was.

If God didn't want slavery to be, he could have made it not happen. He's omnipotent. By doing nothing, he tacitly encourages the institution of slavery.


Okay, let me change the subject, since this is leading back into "God says it's okay, therefore it's okay" territory, and discussing that makes me sad.

Why would someone want to have an afterlife?

 

[Stridone]

Believing in God doesn't mean you are any less of a thinker and being an atheist doesn't equate you to being a Dawkinsque-speaker or intellect.

Not necessarily, no. In general it's a pretty good rule of thumb though.

 

[soul creator]

If one believes in a heaven, doesn't that pretty much contradict the whole, "god just can't come and make everything perfect all the time!" argument?

 

[Calantus]

If one believes in a heaven, doesn't that pretty much contradict the whole, "god just can't come and make everything perfect all the time!" argument?

Yes

 

[Mgoblue201]

I remember Dawkin's making the exact same argument although he did later on assert that it wasn't a doctrine of faith, or lack of faith, that was the motivator but the lack of rationale and free thinking that often stemmed/stems from the blind faith religion often demands. No doubt some of those involved in religious wars in the past felt compelled to join the fighting because of their faith in God, but I think a comparable opposite to that is those that join wars in the name of nationalism/patriotism. Their country drafts them in with the usual propaganda to get them beating the war drum, and you fight for your country's goals regardless if they are just or moral in the greater context. If you take Dawkin's reasoning, then this would be comparable.

Believing in God doesn't mean you are any less of a thinker and being an atheist doesn't equate you to being a Dawkinsque-speaker or intellect.

Also, there is this misconception that religious wars were simply about sides killing each other because the other prayed differently or believed in God A instead of God B. It was always predominantly either about land, power or both. Something which you see play out till this day, except the distinguishing factor isn't faith but flags. I've read and seen re-enactments, that would make you struggle imagining greater examples of horrid brutality, committed in only the last 60 years in Eurasia and none of this under a blind belief of a creator, but out of just pure hatred for the race, ethnicity or even just the nationality.

Man has killed because he heard a voice from the sky. Man has killed because of love and heart break. Man has killed because his President has told him to. Man has killed because he was...bored. There seems to be a pattern at here; Man

I agree with most of this, except to say that this is a strong argument against religion. People who claim to act under the guise of divine inspiration prove just how frail a concept it really is. Following god should be a matter of obeying or disobeying. But if one is misled easily by nationalism and mistakes it for divine mandate, then what can anyone really know about what it means to obey or disobey god? How can we know whether god is for or against something? What if we are merely mistaking our own thoughts for god's? We don't really know where our thoughts come from, after all. It is all too easy to think of something and claim that it was put there by some kind of being. There is no way of ever knowing.

Also, when you say that "Believing in God doesn't mean you are any less of a thinker," it's important to remember that the existence of god is a simple fact. He either exists or he does not (assuming that we can define what god is). It has to say something about a person when one believes that god not only exists, but unequivocally makes his presence known, and the exact opposite is true. I suppose that one can be a sophisticated thinker and still believe in something that false, but it does speak to a fundamental flaw in one's reasoning.

 

[Meus Renaissance]

I agree with most of this, except to say that this is a strong argument against religion. People who claim to act under the guise of divine inspiration prove just how frail a concept it really is. Following god should be a matter of obeying or disobeying. But if one is misled easily by nationalism and mistakes it for divine mandate, then what can anyone really know about what it means to obey or disobey god? How can we know whether god is for or against something? What if we are merely mistaking our own thoughts for god's? We don't really know where our thoughts come from, after all. It is all too easy to think of something and claim that it was put there by some kind of being. There is no way of ever knowing.

Also, when you say that "Believing in God doesn't mean you are any less of a thinker," it's important to remember that the existence of god is a simple fact. He either exists or he does not (assuming that we can define what god is). It has to say something about a person when one believes that god not only exists, but unequivocally makes his presence known, and the exact opposite is true. I suppose that one can be a sophisticated thinker and still believe in something that false, but it does speak to a fundamental flaw in one's reasoning.

I'm not entirely sure if I understand all of that, but I disagree with parts. If you look at my above post I give my opinion on the relationship between faith and man. Other than the examples of those that claim to be Prophets, the "divine inspiration" people often have is, for example, looking at the charitable nature of Christ and if you believe in God, you realise your role in life is try to be the best example of humanity and so you will follow in the footsteps of a man that died thousands of years ago. Hence you're divinely inspired. Figures like Christ are powerful personalities not just because of their relation to God but because they resonated compassion and kindness for all in an environment that contradicted it. Despite the colourful verses in the Bible, there is a reason why the likes of 'Turn the other cheek' are the most widely known and shared. That tells you a lot of how people, themselves at least, want to know faith.

If you tell a worshipper that you don't believe in God, the first thing that'll come to their mind is not your thought-process or your intelligence, but a fear for you because they automatically see you someone without that moral compass to rely on. This is the single reason why they view atheism as decadent; because of the potential loss or lack of reminding of morality. God is first and foremost a personification of that, so discussions on whether or not he exists like a physical object is completely beside the point.

 

[JGS]

If God didn't want slavery to be, he could have made it not happen. He's omnipotent. By doing nothing, he tacitly encourages the institution of slavery.


Okay, let me change the subject, since this is leading back into "God says it's okay, therefore it's okay" territory, and discussing that makes me sad.

Why would someone want to have an afterlife?

This is not leading to a case where God says it's OK so it's OK. God is fine with people not being slaves too. There has never been a Judeo Christian doctrine that mandated owning of slaves.

This is really a case of people saying it's OK and people had no problems with it until other options became available.

You could blame God for just about anything that is unwanted from slavery to the common cold, that doesn't make it his fault that we face them.

His own people were slaves for 400 years because they had no where else to go. You can't expect God to magically create conditions where slavery did not exist. It was always an option in ancient days because...

1. They were cheap labor
2. Nowhere to put the people unless you exercised...
3. The only other option - you killed them.

 

[JGS]

Why would someone want to have an afterlife?

I think the majority of people simply don't want to die.

They would be perfectly content with living. For religions that teach everyone goes to an afterlife, then it's really just a way for them to extend their life.

 

[ChiTownBuffalo]

Jesus loves you all. Even that fucker Roman Polanski.

 

[Dude Abides]

This is not leading to a case where God says it's OK so it's OK. God is fine with people not being slaves too. There has never been a Judeo Christian doctrine that mandated owning of slaves.

This is really a case of people saying it's OK and people had no problems with it until other options became available.

You could blame God for just about anything that is unwanted from slavery to the common cold, that doesn't make it his fault that we face them.

His own people were slaves for 400 years because they had no where else to go. You can't expect God to magically create conditions where slavery did not exist. It was always an option in ancient days because...

1. They were cheap labor
2. Nowhere to put the people unless you exercised...
3. The only other option - you killed them.

So God defers to what people want. Except when he doesn't. Also, this "other options became available" is nonsense. Why weren't other options available then?

It is his fault. He created the universe and everything in it, including slavery, sex trafficking, cystic fibrosis, and Roman Polanski.

 

[Hydranockz]

Jesus loves you all. Even that fucker Roman Polanski.

Very true, although my sarcasm detector is giving off mixed signals.

But yeah, how many times does Jesus eat with the sinners? It's a pretty big philosophy in there.

 

[JGS]

So God defers to what people want. Except when he doesn't. Also, this "other options became available" is nonsense. Why weren't other options available then?

It is his fault. He created the universe and everything in it, including slavery, sex trafficking, cystic fibrosis, and Roman Polanski.

If you don't know the reasons why Human Resources was not a department in ancient labor practices, you need to study more in World History.

God defers to what people want all the time. If we had to live by his standards perfectly, we would have all been doomed a long time ago.

On top of that his mercy, compassion, love, & the desire to prove his way is the right way allows him to allow hmans to make their own choices.

The height of insanity to me is people who actually want their rights and freedoms taken away simply because they feel they're too stupid to take care of themselves.

I've used the example previously, but I will never accept responsibility for the actions of what my kids do as adults even though I created them and am raising them right, so not sure why God would be responsible for ALL people's actions when he is basically giving you what you asked for...

Spoiler

spoiled brats!

 

[soul creator]

God has more options available to him than a limited human being though. The "god is like a parent" analogy is a popular one, but it seems that trying to paint god as just an average human being is a bit of a flawed approach. Although I find it humorous that sometimes god is beyond the comprehension of puny human beings and who are we to question his awesome power, yet other times, god is just like a regular old human parent, so we should stop "demanding" that the poor guy do godlike things.

If someone has the power to stop something bad, yet doesn't, we regularly blame them all the time. See the Apple antenna thread. See Microsoft every time their OS crashes. See Presidents and Congress members when they don't pass good public policy. See a police officer who stands by and doesn't do anything while a crime is in progress. This idea that beings with the power to stop bad things don't have to actually stop bad things seems to just be another situation of "do as I say, not as I do" and "might makes right". We make excuses for god because he's more powerful than us, not because we actually think its a good idea to just let easily preventable bad shit happen. That's like...the exact opposite of basic empathy. And the whole point of being a god is that everything is easily preventable. That's why he's god!

Unless of course, we're saying that human beings weren't created by god and we're independent of him. Or that god is limited in his abilities. Or god doesn't actually care about having a peaceful planet. That at least allows the concept to make sense, though it raises other issues, lol.

Of course, as mentioned, if someone happens to believe in a heaven, that kind of means they just contradicted their entire previous story anyway ("god can't just make everything perfect all the time...except after we die, then he mysteriously all of a sudden makes everything perfect all the time!")

 

[Chaplain]

He created slavery, sex trafficking, cystic fibrosis, and Roman Polanski.

God did not create any of those things. Those sins and diseases are all the result of sin infecting God's creation with death and decay:

"Against its will, all creation was subjected to God’s curse. But with eager hope, the creation looks forward to the day when it will join God’s children in glorious freedom from death and decay. For we know that all creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time."

and man own actions:

"When Adam sinned, sin entered the world. Adam’s sin brought death, so death spread to everyone, for everyone sinned."

"Temptation comes from our own desires, which entice us and drag us away. These desires give birth to sinful actions. And when sin is allowed to grow, it gives birth to death."

 

[Dude Abides]

If you don't know the reasons why Human Resources was not a department in ancient labor practices, you need to study more in World History.

If you think this is an argument, you need to study more logic.

God defers to what people want all the time. If we had to live by his standards perfectly, we would have all been doomed a long time ago.

The question is why God didn't even bother to say anything against slavery. Apparently slavery is consistent with his standards.

On top of that his mercy, compassion, love, & the desire to prove his way is the right way allows him to allow hmans to make their own choices.

Without even bothering to tell them slavery is wrong. He must be cool with it. He took the time to weigh in on all kinds of silly things. A quick passage saying "Thou shalt not not own slaves" wouldn't have taken a whole lot of effort.

 

[Dude Abides]

God did not create any of those things. Those sins and diseases are all the result of sin infecting God's creation with death and decay:

"Against its will, all creation was subjected to God’s curse. But with eager hope, the creation looks forward to the day when it will join God’s children in glorious freedom from death and decay. For we know that all creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time."

God created everything, I've been told. Where did sin come from?

 

[JGS]

God has more options available to him than a limited human being though. The "god is like a parent" analogy is a popular one, but it seems that trying to paint god as just an average human being is a bit of a flawed approach. Although I find it humorous that sometimes god is beyond the comprehension of puny human beings and who are we to question his awesome power, yet other times, god is just like a regular old human parent, so we should stop "demanding" that the poor guy do godlike things.

I never said anything in my post about not understanding God, so you may be referencing someone else. On the contrary it makes perfect sense why he would allow us to think for ourselves since that's natural for us throughout our entire lives. That is not a "God works in mysterious ways" kind of situation.

The parent analogy is used because the equaling irritating premise of God is to blame for all things bad but we are to take credit for al things good is more flawed. Since the debate is simplistic to begin with, the idea has to get dumbed down to a parent/kid scenario.

If someone has the power to stop something bad, yet doesn't, we regularly blame them all the time. See the Apple antenna thread. See Microsoft every time their OS crashes. See Presidents and Congress members when they don't pass good public policy. See a police officer who stands by and doesn't do anything while a crime is in progress. This idea that beings with the power to stop bad things don't have to actually stop bad things seems to just be another situation of "do as I say, not as I do" and "might makes right". We make excuses for god because he's more powerful than us, not because we actually think its a good idea to just let easily preventable bad shit happen. That's like...the exact opposite of basic empathy. And the whole point of being a god is that everything is easily preventable. That's why he's god!

First, just because we can blame someone doesn't mean they are actually the one to blame.

Second, the examples you gave involve what people agree to do. God never agreed to accept responsibility for our actions. In fact, he specifically stated that we could do what we like. However, he did warn of the repercussions.

Further, any help he provided to people was above and beyond the call of duty or something he didn't have to do; aka underserved kindness.

Bottom line is that to eradicating badness would mean one of two things

1. Eradicating choice
2. Having everyone think the same

Neither of those options are available for a bunch of whiny know it alls who only complain of their problems but got the good times figured out all by themselves.

Unless of course, we're saying that human beings weren't created by god and we're independent of him. Or that god is limited in his abilities. Or god doesn't actually care about having a peaceful planet. That at least allows the concept to make sense, though it raises other issues, lol.

Of course, as mentioned, if someone happens to believe in a heaven, that kind of means they just contradicted their entire previous story anyway ("god can't just make everything perfect all the time...except after we die, then he mysteriously all of a sudden makes everything perfect all the time!")

creation does not equal control. Never has, never will. We were created by God but are independent of him (Like our adult kids! Couldn't resist)

God cares about a peaceful planet, but only on his terms because all others have shown to be failures. It's not like he's actively holding up world peace now. We're just too dumb to figure out a way to have it.

The difference between life in heaven and life on earth is that the world is not controlled by God, heaven is. Thus, it makes sense that heaven would be a perfect place to live (I'm not convinced that everyone good is going to heaven and have never believed ina place of torment but that's another topic).

 

[JGS]

If you think this is an argument, you need to study more logic.

I don't need to study logic. You need to stop arguing with people who don't study logic!:lol

As I said before- slavery just is. If you feel personally hurt by te actions of ancient civilizations, then you do need to research it further. Me? I'm good.

The question is why God didn't even bother to say anything against slavery. Apparently slavery is consistent with his standards.

He said plenty about slavery. Your flaw in logic is thinking that since slavery is bad now, it was always bad. It wasn't. It was one of very few options available. There are whole chapters in the Bible that explain treatment of them.

Without even bothering to tell them slavery is wrong. He must be cool with it. He took the time to weigh in on all kinds of silly things. A quick passage saying "Thou shalt not not own slaves" wouldn't have taken a whole lot of effort.

Again slavery wasn't wrong back then. It had the potential to be immoral based on their treatment.

Overall though, it was a class- no different than poor people and blue collar workers today.

 

[astroturfing]

I think the majority of people simply don't want to die.

They would be perfectly content with living. For religions that teach everyone goes to an afterlife, then it's really just a way for them to extend their life.

i think, if someone wants to live forever they really haven't thought it through properly... i mean, FOREVER. that's not just a billion years, or a few trillion. it never ends!

i can't imagine anything more horrible than an endless existance, truly the most disturbing thought of all. when i die, i want there to be nothing, i want release... just like before i was born. that's beautiful, and gives real meaning to the short lives we have here.

also... since two of the biggest religions include an "alternate" afterlife called HELL, where most people will go (simply since most people are non-christian or non-islamic)... i want to ask any religious person this: how can you enjoy your eternal stay in Heaven, knowing that most other people are in Hell, very likely some of your friends and relatives too? (also, me).

i think this is an important question to think about, if you really believe in heaven/hell. i've had dozens of Christians completely dodge this question before, so i would love to hear an honest response... is it really just a case of forgetting, not caring about the "lost souls" because they got what they deserved? even loved ones..

 

[Dude Abides]

I don't need to study logic. You need to stop arguing with people who don't study logic!:lol

As I said before- slavery just is. If you feel personally hurt by te actions of ancient civilizations, then you do need to research it further. Me? I'm good.


He said plenty about slavery. Your flaw in logic is thinking that since salvery is bad now, it was always bad. It wasn't. It was one of very few options available. There are whole chapters in the Bible that explain treatment of them.


Again slavery wasn't wrong back then. It had the potential to be immoral based on their treatment.

Glad to have you on the record as pro-slavery. So God was pro-slavery and slavery is good. That's an interesting view. The claim that slavery "just was" is nonsensical. People chose to own slaves. They could have chosen otherwise. God should have so instructed them.

Overall though, it was a class- no different than poor people and blue collar workers today.

Uh huh. And yet so many lives were sacrificed to end this benign institution. Such a pity.

 

[astroturfing]

slavery is relative :lol :lol :lol

interesting thing about slavery btw... it's not that long ago if you think about, i mean there are still people alive whose PARENTS were slaves! just recently a couple years ago the world's oldest person Elizabeth Bolden died at 116, and her parents were (freed) slaves...

 

[JGS]

i think, if someone wants to live forever they really haven't thought it through properly... i mean, FOREVER. that's not just a billion years, or a few trillion. it never ends!

i can't imagine anything more horrible than an endless existance, truly the most disturbing thought of all. when i die, i want there to be nothing, i want release... just like before i was born. that's beautiful, and gives real meaning to the short lives we have here.

also... since two of the biggest religions include an "alternate" afterlife called HELL, where most people will go (simply since most people are non-christian or non-islamic)... i want to ask any religious person this: how can you enjoy your eternal stay in Heaven, knowing that most other people are in Hell, very likely some of your friends and relatives too? (also, me).

i think this is an important question to think about, if you really believe in heaven/hell. i've had dozens of Christians completely dodge this question before, so i would love to hear an honest response... is it really just a case of forgetting, not caring about the "lost souls" because they got what they deserved? even loved ones..

I don't believe the Bible teaches eternal torment is the outcome for sinners.

However, in any event I would live just fine. This comes back to responsibilty. If people chose a path that lead to their death/eternal torture, then why would it bother me beyond the normal familial grief?

I grieve my father's passing and wish I could see him again every day, but that doesn't stop me from having a happy life now.

No one has enough time to learn all there is to know and in fact it would take several lifetimes to learn. if forever rolls around and I come to the realization that there is no more to learn or appreciate, then I'll ask God for an exception. Right now, there's no reason to trust my puny brain (or others') when it comes to knowledge boredom.

Hopefully I didn't doge the question.

I have no problem with people dying while I live. We do that all the time. Otherwise people would be committing suicide everytime their parents died.

 

[JGS]

slavery is relative :lol :lol :lol

It is.

What's so funny?

:lol *lol giggle snicker*

 

[astroturfing]

^ not even going to respond to that...

I don't believe the Bible teaches eternal torment is the outcome for sinners.

well uhh... i don't believe you're a Christian then. i'm pretty sure the whole point of Christianity as a whole is to accept Jesus so you don't have to go to hell. if not, what then!?

However, in any event I would live just fine. This comes back to responsibilty. If people chose a path that lead to their death/eternal torture, then why would it bother me beyond the normal familial grief?

yeah ok, if you don't think eternal torture is a bit overkill as a punishment for petty sins like not believing in the right religion...

I grieve my father's passing and wish I could see him again every day, but that doesn't stop me from having a happy life now.

thats good i guess. sorry for your loss though... i can't even imagine how bad it feels losing a father or a mother. not that far into my life yet.

No one has enough time to learn all there is to know and in fact it would take several lifetimes to learn. if forever rolls around and I come to the realization that there is no more to learn or appreciate, then I'll ask God for an exception. Right now, there's no reason to trust my puny brain (or others') when it comes to knowledge boredom.

speaking of our puny brains... i don't think anyone should trust their own brain so much that they think they can pick the right religion and god(s) out of all the thousands that have existed. our brains fool us CONSTANTLY, we all have false memories, false beliefs, easily trapped by wishful thinking etc...

Hopefully I didn't doge the question.

nah, you seem very intellectually honest, thanks for responding.

I have no problem with people dying while I live. We do that all the time. Otherwise people would be committing suicide everytime their parents died.

i guess some are just more sensitive to death/suffering.

 

[JGS]

Glad to have you on the record as pro-slavery. So God was pro-slavery and slavery is good. That's an interesting view. The claim that slavery "just was" is nonsensical. People chose to own slaves. They could have chosen otherwise. God should have so instructed them.

[sigh]

The leaps in "logic" that you claim to cling to is astounding. Maybe basic English is what you should study instead.

Uhh, many did choose otherwise and God instructed them as well or are you saying they were sinners in God's view for not owning slaves?

Like I said if you think I'm going to get bent out of shape over something that was the norm just because I choose not to apply 20th century thinking to it, then I guess you can brand me pro-slavery. I guess....but it's a stretch.

Given your gross exagerations on the topic, you are wasting mine and your time. In short, you have gotten boring.

Uh huh. And yet so many lives were sacrificed to end this benign institution. Such a pity.

Hmm...

That makes no sense in regards to what we're talking about. Logic has failed again. I suggest Venn diagrams...

 

[JGS]

^ not even going to respond to that...

:lol
That's the best course of action when you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[ChiTownBuffalo]

Very true, although my sarcasm detector is giving off mixed signals.

But yeah, how many times does Jesus eat with the sinners? It's a pretty big philosophy in there.

Mark 2:13-17 is the only thing that comes to mind, to be honest.

 

[Dude Abides]

[sigh]

The leaps in "logic" that you claim to cling to is astounding. Maybe basic English is what you should study instead.

Your inability to express yourself clearly is your fault. Or maybe God's for not granting you the necessary skill.

Uhh, many did choose otherwise and God instructed them as well or are you saying they were sinners in God's view for not owning slaves?

It's not hard to understand. God instructed people not to do things he considers immoral. God did not instruct people not to own slaves. Therefore God does not think slavery is immoral. Let's see if you can address this point honestly and clearly before I waste further time with you.

 

[JGS]

Your inability to express yourself clearly is your fault. Or maybe God's for not granting you the necessary skill.

If you can't understand what you're quotng, then you need to stop replying to it. You are illiterate if you think for one second I said what you accused me of.

Try another weak excuse.

It's not hard to understand. God instructed people not to do things he considers immoral. God did not instruct people not to own slaves. Therefore God does not think slavery is immoral. Let's see if you can address this point honestly and clearly before I waste further time with you.

I'll capitalize so as not to bring ambiguity to what I've said a million times before.

SLAVERY AS PRACTICED IN BIBLE TIMES WAS NOT CONSIDERED IMMORAL.

That is the term YOU use now to describe it - rightfully so since there are a million different ways to have/gain workers in this day and age.

No one, including God, thought slavery was immoral. Their treatment was the basis of whether or not slavery was immoral or not which is why there were laws dictating how they should be treated when few other civilizations cared about their treatment.

Now if that statement offends you then so be it. However, you're an idiot if you think that explaining historical reality equates to someone wishing for slavery now.

 

[astroturfing]

it's not about you wishing for slavery... it's about you downplaying the history of slavery, as if it was something unavoidable, justified in "holy" texts...

how did the slave owners of the time justify their practices? probably in the same way as you do now. the bible didn't forbid it. and hundreds of years of people literally owning other people ensued.

 

[Dude Abides]

If you can't understand what you're quotng, then you need to stop replying to it. You are illiterate if you think for one second I said what you accused me of.

I charitably do my best to discern what you are trying to say from the jumble of vague ungrammatical incoherence you tend to post. And my charity is rewarded with insults. How Christ-like of you.

SLAVERY AS PRACTICED IN BIBLE TIMES WAS NOT CONSIDERED IMMORAL.

So what? Why would God defer to the mores of the time? What kind of absolute moral law-giver just goes along with the flavor of the moment?

That is the term YOU use now to describe it - rightfully so since there are a million different ways to have/gain workers in this day and age.

As there were in Biblical times. Are you aware that slavery was not the only form of labor relationship during the period?

 

[Mumei]

I remember Dawkin's making the exact same argument although he did later on assert that it wasn't a doctrine of faith, or lack of faith, that was the motivator but the lack of rationale and free thinking that often stemmed/stems from the blind faith religion often demands. No doubt some of those involved in religious wars in the past felt compelled to join the fighting because of their faith in God, but I think a comparable opposite to that is those that join wars in the name of nationalism/patriotism. Their country drafts them in with the usual propaganda to get them beating the war drum, and you fight for your country's goals regardless if they are just or moral in the greater context. If you take Dawkin's reasoning, then this would be comparable.

Right. I think that the conception of the problem in the examples of Officially Atheist States That Killed A Lot Of People being a combination of an overly slavish adherence to dogma (resulting in things like widespread starvation) and the, well, issues that their leaders experienced (extreme paranoia combined with absolute power and that whole dogma thing resulting in totalitarianism) is a more realistic take on what went wrong with those states than attempts to lay the fault at the feet of atheism.

I see the clear connection between the former explanation, but not the latter.

He said plenty about slavery. Your flaw in logic is thinking that since slavery is bad now, it was always bad. It wasn't. It was one of very few options available. There are whole chapters in the Bible that explain treatment of them.

Again slavery wasn't wrong back then. It had the potential to be immoral based on their treatment.

Overall though, it was a class- no different than poor people and blue collar workers today.

So why was slavery morally acceptable then, according to God, and why is it not acceptable now? Did God send out an edict changing his mind?

I thought that God was eternal and unchanging and that his words in the Bible were meant to represent some eternal, objective truths about morality. I thought that if God said slavery was moral in 600 BCE to Jewish tribes in the desert, that slavery was still just as moral in 2010 CE. So what gives? Why do you think slavery is immoral today when it wasn't before?

 

[the_concierge]

So why was slavery morally acceptable then, according to God, and why is it not acceptable now? Did God send out an edict changing his mind?

I thought that God was eternal and unchanging and that his words in the Bible were meant to represent some eternal, objective truths about morality. I thought that if God said slavery was moral in 600 BCE to Jewish tribes in the desert, that slavery was still just as moral in 2010 CE. So what gives? Why do you think slavery is immoral today when it wasn't before?

I know I'm coming into this late, but exactly! Of course we can easily explain the discrepancy: the Bible is not a moral authority, and our definitions of what is moral arise from secular, rational and reasoned discussion and not from religious authority.

 

[Metaphoreus]

I know I said I'd be away for three weeks, but I had to post a quick comment on slavery. I promise that next Thursday or Friday I'll be able to post a thorough response in my ongoing discussion with Mgoblue201, jdogmoney, and a few others who have replied to my last post. For now, I just wanted to point out that slavery in the ancient Near East was a completely different institution from slavery in the recent Western world. For a lengthy treatment of the subject, see here.

 

[JGS]

it's not about you wishing for slavery... it's about you downplaying the history of slavery, as if it was something unavoidable, justified in "holy" texts...

how did the slave owners of the time justify their practices? probably in the same way as you do now. the bible didn't forbid it. and hundreds of years of people literally owning other people ensued.

Nobody is downplaying slavery. If anything, I am explaining how big a role slavery played in every major civilization- to the point that it was the norm. There was no reason to forbid it in and of itself

Since it was the norm, it was important to see how slaves were treated rather than whether they existed. Most people at that time did not worship God so it was irrelevant whether he thought it was right or wrong anyway. The mahority of civilization was still going to own them.

However, there were valid reason for slavery back then that do not hold water now. As to who owned them, any number of people did.

- Some slaves were owned by the government
- Others were purchased by individuals
- Others voluntarily became so to pay off a debt

Biblically, most were collateral damage of war or voluntary slaves.

 

[soul creator]

Second, the examples you gave involve what people agree to do. God never agreed to accept responsibility for our actions.

I'm guessing this is the disconnect. To me, the act of "creating" something does in fact mean you have full responsibility for it, especially if the creator is the all powerful source of all things, or whatever. With human beings, sure, there are all sorts of unforeseen things we can't ever fully account for. But you don't have that problem with a god. That's why he's god!

In fact, he specifically stated that we could do what we like. However, he did warn of the repercussions.

Actually, I can't do "what I like", because I'm limited physically by the constraints of my human brain, and human body parts. I would like to fly around the world by flapping my arms, but I can't, because I wasn't "created" that way. So, if God was sooo concerned about sin and bad things, the most straightforward way to avoid that was just make us physically incapable of it (just like how we're physically incapable of millions of things). He created humanity after all (or so the story goes)

Further, any help he provided to people was above and beyond the call of duty or something he didn't have to do; aka underserved kindness.

Yes, when Microsoft offers a replacement warranty for 360's with the 3 red lights, it was undeserved kindness, not a defective creation.

Bottom line is that to eradicating badness would mean one of two things

1. Eradicating choice
2. Having everyone think the same

Neither of those options are available for a bunch of whiny know it alls who only complain of their problems but got the good times figured out all by themselves.

So if god decreed one day that "there is now no such thing as child rape or earthquakes that destroy cities", that would be "eradicating choice"? And would make this into a world where everyone thinks the same?

creation does not equal control. Never has, never will. We were created by God but are independent of him (Like our adult kids! Couldn't resist)

As mentioned above, I think it does, in god's case. Humans don't have 100% control of every possible physical action that their kids are capable of, so no one expects 100% ability to prevent every bad thing that can happen. God, being super powerful and what not, does have that power. That's why he's god! Unless you're saying that God isn't actually God.

It's like you're saying no one should ever criticize a US President for any military decisions, even though they are the commander-in-chief.

God cares about a peaceful planet, but only on his terms because all others have shown to be failures. It's not like he's actively holding up world peace now. We're just too dumb to figure out a way to have it.

The difference between life in heaven and life on earth is that the world is not controlled by God, heaven is. Thus, it makes sense that heaven would be a perfect place to live (I'm not convinced that everyone good is going to heaven and have never believed ina place of torment but that's another topic).

So if he wants peace so badly, what's exactly the point of this whole "earth" thing? Why not just skip straight to the heaven part? Are you now saying that choice is eradicated in heaven and everyone thinks the same?

So if God doesn't "control the earth". Who does? Us? We are now more powerful than god when it comes to earth? How could we be more powerful than god, unless god is essentially "handicapping" himself?

 

[JGS]

Dang it you edited.

well uhh... i don't believe you're a Christian then. i'm pretty sure the whole point of Christianity as a whole is to accept Jesus so you don't have to go to hell. if not, what then!?

You would be incorrect. In fact, not believeing in eternal torment is the most Christian thing about me.

yeah ok, if you don't think eternal torture is a bit overkill as a punishment for petty sins like not believing in the right religion...

My comments didn't say anything about overkill. Eternal torment is overkill which is why it's not taught in the Bible.

I said I could live my life just fine if eternal torment was the punishment though- asumming I'm not being eternally tormented. There is a big difference.

Let's switch back to a death penalty for petty sins since I can't argue something I don't believe in. Who says their petty? Besides if even one sin knocks us out of the chance of living forever, I'm not sure why it is shocking that a constant sinner who doesn't like God shouldn't kick the bucket. We die for less reasons now.

thats good i guess. sorry for your loss though... i can't even imagine how bad it feels losing a father or a mother. not that far into my life yet.

Thanks. It feels absolutely horrible, but life goes on and there are a ton of things that in life that help vercome the sadness - particulary my kids.

speaking of our puny brains... i don't think anyone should trust their own brain so much that they think they can pick the right religion and god(s) out of all the thousands that have existed. our brains fool us CONSTANTLY, we all have false memories, false beliefs, easily trapped by wishful thinking etc...

Religion, like everything else, takes research. I went from a religion I was born into to one I'm more comfortable with. Still not 100% on the afterlife so I'm still searching on that one.

i guess some are just more sensitive to death/suffering.

I hate death. Can't stand it. I get sad thinking about my kids dying of old age for goodness sake! I want them to live forever.

I wish everyone would live forever and the people I liked lived on the same street as me forever! But I'm a realist and I know that despite my dislike for death, it happens at least for now. This is why I prepare myself for when the inevitable(?) happens.

 

[astroturfing]

interesting.. hmm.

i'm curious, why don't you believe in hell? pretty much every single Christian i've talked to believes in it and says it's an integral part of Christianity. who's wrong here? either you or them..

why should i even become Christian and "accept Jesus" if there's no Hell? i don't see any point.

damn it's so confusing when one religion has so many different variations..

 

[JGS]

interesting.. hmm.

i'm curious, why don't you believe in hell? pretty much every single Christian i've talked to believes in it and says it's an integral part of Christianity. who's wrong here? either you or them..

why should i even become Christian and "accept Jesus" if there's no Hell? i don't see any point.

damn it's so confusing when one religion has so many different variations..

I'm not going to get into who's right or wrong. I have not found enough evidence in the Bible to believe it is a Christian (or Jewish teaching). The ones who believe in Hellfire have not provided a strong enough counter for me to buy into it.

Most of the huge Christian religions are all based on the same information which was based on a meeting not what the Bible taught.

IMO, you don't become a Christian because of punishment which is the absolute worst reason - especially one as heinous as eternal torture. Punishment is a part of it, but death seems to be a fair enough price to me and it's something we can take. Torture for all eternity is the epitome of overkill and quite frankly evil. If it were verified that torture was the punishment for sin I would stop being religious (I would try to fake it though!)

One should be a Christian because they want to be and they like what they hear. You could say that about any religion, but Jesus said that few would become followers of him and so you are correct that most people do not unless they have an eternal torment gun put to their head.

 

[JGS]

So why was slavery morally acceptable then, according to God, and why is it not acceptable now? Did God send out an edict changing his mind?

I thought that God was eternal and unchanging and that his words in the Bible were meant to represent some eternal, objective truths about morality. I thought that if God said slavery was moral in 600 BCE to Jewish tribes in the desert, that slavery was still just as moral in 2010 CE. So what gives? Why do you think slavery is immoral today when it wasn't before?

God didn't change at all regarding slavery, mankind did. God basically said "If you're going to have slaves, then this is what you need to do..."

God's moral code does not change. Slavery was not an issue of morality for him or anyone else. Many are just trying to make it so.

You and others are getting mixed up when it comes to what is allowed and what is encouraged. God didn't encourage slavery and unless he ruled the world could not disallow it since that's what the world wanted.

In ancient times, the planet as a whole did not care about slavery being moral or immoral as it was a normal way of life.

Now the planet as a whole wants to get paid for their work. They want criminals to be in prison rather than slaves. They want to be able to file bankruptcy instead of slavery. Because of those options, it makes no sense to have slavery in place except for immoral purposes - greed, inhumane treatment, racism, etc...

 

[Blergmeister]

God didn't change at all regarding slavery, mankind did. God basically said "If you're going to have slaves, then this is what you need to do..."

God's moral code does not change. Slavery was not an issue of morality for him or anyone else. Many are just trying to make it so.

So since Gods moral code has not changed, and since you use Gods moral code, you are saying that slavery, as instituted in the Bible, is morally and ethicly fine and dandy in the eyes of God if re-instituted today?

I mean, I agree that society is structered differently today in that we put more of how we operate on our currency than before, but that doesn't change the ethics of slavery if Gods ethics are absolute right?

 

[astroturfing]

In ancient times, the planet as a whole did not care about slavery being moral or immoral as it was a normal way of life.

what about the not so ancient times, African slaves in America? it's not a long time ago.

how did Christian people in the USA justify slavery then? did they perhaps look in the Bible and see that it's not a huge issue for God if there's some slaves around? i think they did exactly that.

 

[Mgoblue201]

I'm not entirely sure if I understand all of that, but I disagree with parts. If you look at my above post I give my opinion on the relationship between faith and man. Other than the examples of those that claim to be Prophets, the "divine inspiration" people often have is, for example, looking at the charitable nature of Christ and if you believe in God, you realise your role in life is try to be the best example of humanity and so you will follow in the footsteps of a man that died thousands of years ago. Hence you're divinely inspired. Figures like Christ are powerful personalities not just because of their relation to God but because they resonated compassion and kindness for all in an environment that contradicted it. Despite the colourful verses in the Bible, there is a reason why the likes of 'Turn the other cheek' are the most widely known and shared. That tells you a lot of how people, themselves at least, want to know faith.

If you tell a worshipper that you don't believe in God, the first thing that'll come to their mind is not your thought-process or your intelligence, but a fear for you because they automatically see you someone without that moral compass to rely on. This is the single reason why they view atheism as decadent; because of the potential loss or lack of reminding of morality. God is first and foremost a personification of that, so discussions on whether or not he exists like a physical object is completely beside the point.

The point is that religion has no claims to moral superiority when it is just as morally reprehensible and people routinely mistake their own thoughts and desires for divine mandates. PZ Myers had a good post today about how the creation museum graphically portrays the death of ordinary people in the flood just to instill "psychological terrorism". Taking all of the uplifting portions of Jesus's life and focusing on a "relationship" doesn't change the almost inhuman treatment that Christianity takes toward heterodoxy, however one happens to define that. Trying to eschew the latter is revisionist history and proves that religion can be distorted into whatever perception people want it to have. What proof is there that religion is all charity and good works? On the other hand, I can point to countless verses about god's wrath and the sinner.

Bottom line is that to eradicating badness would mean one of two things

1. Eradicating choice
2. Having everyone think the same

Neither of those options are available for a bunch of whiny know it alls who only complain of their problems but got the good times figured out all by themselves.

Except most suffering has nothing to do with choice. It is never proportionate to our actions. What kind of thing does a person do to have a hurricane destroy one's life? Why should randomness exist at all? These things only limit choice. In fact, if I am born with the wrong genes and live my life with a low IQ, how can I choose what I cannot understand? Christianity's dogma is at odds with itself. It espouses free will, yet the very fact of "evil" limits free will. And as I was arguing earlier, no one really chooses to sin. If we commit our first sins before we are fully cognizant of our actions, then how can we be culpable?

It's almost comically deplorable that you defend the idea of choice yet excuse slavery.

I don't believe the Bible teaches eternal torment is the outcome for sinners.

I'm still waiting for the reply to this post.

 

[Mumei]

God didn't change at all regarding slavery, mankind did. God basically said "If you're going to have slaves, then this is what you need to do..."

God's moral code does not change. Slavery was not an issue of morality for him or anyone else. Many are just trying to make it so.

You and others are getting mixed up when it comes to what is allowed and what is encouraged. God didn't encourage slavery and unless he ruled the world could not disallow it since that's what the world wanted.

In ancient times, the planet as a whole did not care about slavery being moral or immoral as it was a normal way of life.

Now the planet as a whole wants to get paid for their work. They want criminals to be in prison rather than slaves. They want to be able to file bankruptcy instead of slavery. Because of those options, it makes no sense to have slavery in place except for immoral purposes - greed, inhumane treatment, racism, etc...

No, I am not getting confused about the difference between "allowed" and "encouraged."

Many Christians make the claim that morality has a supernatural origin, that it is derived from God. This morality is claimed to be not merely a subjective morality, but one that is objective and unchanging. God allows slavery and details how the institution might be ethically run; according to God's morality, slavery is acceptable and moral.

So, I have to repeat my question: On what basis do you decide that slavery is immoral now? Your explanation which you already gave was that today there are other options besides slavery, which meant that the only reason left to have slavery would be "greed, inhumane treatment, racism, etc." I had a few problems with that explanation that I'm hoping you'll address:

First, on what basis do you think that the motivation for slavery in ancient times wasn't also greed? On what basis do you think that slavery in ancient times didn't involve inhumane treatment? If those two things are immoral purposes which make slavery wrong, then why would God allow slavery in the first place? Second, if God is omniscient,
wouldn't he know that greed was a motivator for slavery? Wouldn't he know that inhumane treatment would result from slavery? If God did not believe that greed or inhumane treatment made slavery immoral, why do you believe greed or inhumane treatment make slavery immoral?

Thanks.

 

[Meus Renaissance]

Right. I think that the conception of the problem in the examples of Officially Atheist States That Killed A Lot Of People being a combination of an overly slavish adherence to dogma (resulting in things like widespread starvation) and the, well, issues that their leaders experienced (extreme paranoia combined with absolute power and that whole dogma thing resulting in totalitarianism) is a more realistic take on what went wrong with those states than attempts to lay the fault at the feet of atheism.

I see the clear connection between the former explanation, but not the latter.

So what exactly is your impression of religious wars? I'm sorry I haven't been up to date with your previous comments.

 

[Jzero]

no offence people but super religious people are so annoying, no one likes random people knocking at your door and wasting their time or random people going up to you at the park or the bus or the store giving you little books or salt or whatever else people give out.:lol im not atheist btw

 

[Mumei]

So what exactly is your impression of religious wars? I'm sorry I haven't been up to date with your previous comments.

I actually just sort of jumped in the middle - if you read the past page (22 on 100 / page) you'll have all my posts for the last month or so.

As far as religious wars go, I do think it is probably important to separate the "real" reasons for the war - by this, I mean the reasons why leaders in those religious wars decided to go to war - and why an ordinary person might have gone.

For instance, you mentioned that religious wars were predominantly motivated by a desire for greater land, power, or both. And I think you're probably right about that. I think where we might disagree is that I think that it is significant that those wars weren't fought (at least not to my knowledge; feel free to correct) on appeals to "King / Queen / Emperor / ??? So and So really just isn't quite satisfied with the current size of his / her kingdom or empire, and would really feel more comfortable if [Insert Country Being Invaded Here] was under his / her control," but on appeals to religion. It's probably fair to say that religion holds some responsibility insofar as it is used to inspire people to fight and insofar as religious reasons are the reasons that ordinary people chose to fight. But because religion isn't the root cause, religion isn't solely responsible for religious wars.

Does that make sense?

 

[Meus Renaissance]

I actually just sort of jumped in the middle - if you read the past page (22 on 100 / page) you'll have all my posts for the last month or so.

As far as religious wars go, I do think it is probably important to separate the "real" reasons for the war - by this, I mean the reasons why leaders in those religious wars decided to go to war - and why an ordinary person might have gone.

For instance, you mentioned that religious wars were predominantly motivated by a desire for greater land, power, or both. And I think you're probably right about that. I think where we might disagree is that I think that it is significant that those wars weren't fought (at least not to my knowledge; feel free to correct) on appeals to "King / Queen / Emperor / ??? So and So really just isn't quite satisfied with the current size of his / her kingdom or empire, and would really feel more comfortable if [Insert Country Being Invaded Here] was under his / her control," but on appeals to religion. It's probably fair to say that religion holds some responsibility insofar as it is used to inspire people to fight and insofar as religious reasons are the reasons that ordinary people chose to fight. But because religion isn't the root cause, religion isn't solely responsible for religious wars.

Does that make sense?

Yes. Then is it even worth distinguishing these wars when they're fought for the same reasons and people are motivated using a passionate subject? It's religion there, it's race over there, love, nationality, ethnicity etc. Take your pic. However the religious factor seems to warrant more of intrigue for people to be suspicious of when those other listed factors are predominantly tearing social fabrics in many countries. How many discussions do you see on the net about the problem of 'nationalism' or 'racism' when it comes to war compared to religion's history of warfare