Conflict of Conscience vs Scripture

[DogmaHunter]

The same thing happens to Atheists, look at what the Communist movement did within this world last century

You said it yourself: communist.

Atheism is not communism.
Communism, is its own ideology.

The problem with totalitarian regimes like the Soviets, North Korea etc is communism.

Their social behavior, Laws, justice systems certainly gave us a picture. I think division within a belief system needs to be recognized that it's not unique to Theists alone

Atheism, is not a belief system.
"Atheism" is a label for people who do not follow a specific belief system. That specific belief system, being theism.

It doesn't tell you anything about which belief system IS being followed - if any, that is!

It's also something that can be examined for either an individual level or a group level. It's also not new to mankind in general, just look at the underlining ramification of an observation made 2000 years ago in Jude 1:12.

So how do I bridge the gap? I try to be objective and distinguish between the present and historical context of mankind. Knowing that I won't necessarily agree with a group consensus on specific subjects just because we have the same label.

The thing is though, your label comes with a set of doctrines and dogma's that are implied by the label.

Atheism is the opposite.
The label doesn't give you any positive description about what is believed.
By the label "atheist", you actually know NOTHING "positive" about me in terms of what I DO believe, what I DO accept, what my worldview actually is....

The only thing the label tells you, is that I'm not buying into the claims of theism, and that's it. It tells you what I do NOT believe.

 

[Tom 1]

I don't think so.... Instead, I'm talking about very clear language used in a religious book which is held up by its followers as THE book and THE source and THE standard of moral behaviour... while that book, instead of flat out saying do not consider people as being your personal private property, actually just regulates and condones the practice of slavery.

I don't see how anyone can marry that with the idea that this book is somehow our manual on "how to live" or our source of morals / ethics, or a moral standard by itself or whatever.

I'm genuinly asking: is there ANY context, ANY circumstance that you can imagine, where it would EVER be morally justifed to treat other human beings as your private property that you can buy, sell and pass on to off spring as "inheritance"?

It's an honest question. It's fine if your answer is "no", but then just own up to that. And acknowledge that your bible disagrees.



When the subject of discussion is a book that is being held up as THE source / standard of what is to be considered moral behaviour, I'ld say that it means a WHOLE LOT to point out that the book has no issues with the practice of slavery....

Neither would I call that a "moralising rant".

Instead, I would call it a very very correct, moral and ethical objection to calling this book "THE source/standard of morality".



LOL!

Right, right..... because a completely perfect universe with completely perfectly moral sentient beings is the only possible alternative to a rule that says "hey, don't keep slaves!"

That's truelly ... I can't use the word that I would like to on this forum.

It's easy, really....
If this God can command people not to kill, steal, eat shrimp, engage in homosexual sex etc.... he sure as heck can command people not to own and treat other people as their private property!

I'm sorry, but there really is no excuse.
I get it though. It must be difficult to admit that it condones one of the most immoral practices that human kind has ever engaged in.

What I’m saying in plainer language is that your approach is a cop out, a high-horse standard that allows you to skim over the surface of issues you’ve made no real effort to engage with, something that is evident from your comments. You simply don’t understand the questions being raised, so you moralise instead. To say this or that thing is never acceptable is to then be in the situation of having to deal with it when is does, inevitably, happen. There is so much you aren’t seeing here that it’s impossible to know where to start - I’d suggest familiarising yourself with the development of civilisation in the ANE, how the Jewish nation developed out of that, what the purpose of God establishing and identifying with this nation was, what the implications of that are - that would be enough to give you some starting point. If you want to treat God as a fictional character that won’t necessarily get in the way, as long as you don’t let that prevent you engaging with the information objectively.

 

[Tom 1]

Nvm

 

[Tom 1]

Atheism, is not a belief system.
"Atheism" is a label for people who do not follow a specific belief system. That specific belief system, being theism.

Isn’t a metaphysical belief in dysteleology implicit in atheism?

 

[Radagast]

How do you bridge the gap between what is clearly in the your scriptures and your Conscience?

There is no gap.

Or another easy example is Slavery, which is significantly less divisive than homosexuality, now but it was not at a certain point.

Christianity was the main factor in abolishing slavery within Europe.

 

[Radagast]

Atheism, is not a belief system.
"Atheism" is a label for people who do not follow a specific belief system. That specific belief system, being theism.

That's nonsense. The only way to not have a belief system is to believe nothing at all.

But in fact, atheists do have certain beliefs, such as that omnipotent beings do not exist.

 

[DogmaHunter]

What I’m saying in plainer language is that your approach is a cop out, a high-horse standard that allows you to skim over the surface of issues you’ve made no real effort to engage with, something that is evident from your comments.

Then answer my question: can you think of a circumstance, any circumstance, where it is morally and ethically justifiable to treat human beings as private property that can be bought, sold and inherited?

You simply don’t understand the questions being raised, so you moralise instead

What questions? The one I keep asking and which you keep not answering?

To say this or that thing is never acceptable is to then be in the situation of having to deal with it when is does, inevitably, happen.

We humans actuall already dealt with it. We (eventually) recognised it for the evil that it is and subsequently made the practice illegal.

But your bible doesn't speak out against it. Au contraire. Your bible is fine with the practice.
While really, the only correct moral/ethical statement about it is "DON'T DO IT"
Do you disagree? Is slavery morally justifyable in your opinion?

There is so much you aren’t seeing here that it’s impossible to know where to start

Start with your BEST objection. Start with the BIGGEST thing I'm missing.

- I’d suggest familiarising yourself with the development of civilisation in the ANE, how the Jewish nation developed out of that, what the purpose of God establishing and identifying with this nation was, what the implications of that are - that would be enough to give you some starting point.

And what about those circumstances makes it okay to treat human beings as your private property?

Teach me, o wise one.

If you want to treat God as a fictional character that won’t necessarily get in the way, as long as you don’t let that prevent you engaging with the information objectively.

I don't even care much for god being fictional or not, when it comes to this subject.

The point remains unadressed....
Theists claim this book is like the epitome of moral thought. That the authority that brought us these rules and guidelines is THE standar of morality and ethics.
And it condones slavery.

It is what it is.

I'm not the one claiming that, so I don't have to defend it. But I do get to shine a light on it and expose it for the vile thing that it is.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Isn’t a metaphysical belief in dysteleology implicit in atheism?

no.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I dont understand that at all - how can you say an animal was corrupted or the land was corrupted. How can you say all people were corrupted - and if what you say is true then why did he maintain two of all the species if they were so corrupted. I find it very difficult to move past the fact that God had committed a genocide of epic proportions that is at odds with his own commandment.

Most likely disease of everything including the land itself. Some parasites remain in the soil infecting everything that comes in contact with it. Africa is plagued with feces-borne parasites that infect millions. We don't know what diseases were prevalent among mankind, but they were probably degenerative mentally as well as physically. Of course God selected the animals for the ark but they too might have carried diseases over as well. Regarding children I can only imagine how they also suffered from disease and congenital disorders as well. The story also reveals that mankind's behavior was "only evil continually". One can imagine just how evil mankind was by considering today's evil i.e. "as in the days of Noah".

Think about what mankind, animal kind, and plant kind, would look like today if not for medical interventions. We might need another ark.

 

[DogmaHunter]

That's nonsense.

No, it's not.

The only way to not have a belief system is to believe nothing at all.

Maybe you should read the quotes you are responding to.
Let me point out a rather important word that you seem to have missed:

"Atheism" is a label for people who do not follow a specific belief system.

The "specific" belief system being, the theistic belief system.
I didn't say that atheists can't have any beliefs. I said that what those beliefs are, can't be derived from the word "atheist". The only thing that can be derived from the word "atheist", is what the person in question does NOT believe. And what that person does NOT believe, are the claims of theism.

But in fact, atheists do have certain beliefs, such as that omnipotent beings do not exist.

Nope.
Atheism is a position on the claim "a god exists".
It is not necessarily a position on the claim "a god does NOT exist".

It seems you are very confused about what atheism really is (or rather: isn't.)

 

[Tom 1]

no.

It’s an interesting one though I think. There are a lot of people working at the top level in physical sciences who wouldn’t deny that purpose in the universe would be the logical conclusion, although it is often called ‘the appearance of purpose’, which is a metaphysical statement, a belief rather than demonstrably factual. If you take out all such use of metaphor and linguistic shenanigans from arguments put forward in the God delusion etc you don’t have much of an argument left. I can’t see how a materialist can claim not to believe in dysteleology but be an atheist, wouldn’t someone who doesn’t believe in either teleology or dysteleology be an agnostic?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

What does a corrupted cow look like? What does it do to become corrupted?

Here's a few. Remember that antibiotics weren't known in Noah's day.

Cattle Diseases: Signs and Prevention | Arrowquip

 

[Tom 1]

Then answer my question: can you think of a circumstance, any circumstance, where it is morally and ethically justifiable to treat human beings as private property that can be bought, sold and inherited?



What questions? The one I keep asking and which you keep not answering?




We humans actuall already dealt with it. We (eventually) recognised it for the evil that it is and subsequently made the practice illegal.

But your bible doesn't speak out against it. Au contraire. Your bible is fine with the practice.
While really, the only correct moral/ethical statement about it is "DON'T DO IT"
Do you disagree? Is slavery morally justifyable in your opinion?



Start with your BEST objection. Start with the BIGGEST thing I'm missing.



And what about those circumstances makes it okay to treat human beings as your private property?

Teach me, o wise one.



I don't even care much for god being fictional or not, when it comes to this subject.

The point remains unadressed....
Theists claim this book is like the epitome of moral thought. That the authority that brought us these rules and guidelines is THE standar of morality and ethics.
And it condones slavery.

It is what it is.

I'm not the one claiming that, so I don't have to defend it. But I do get to shine a light on it and expose it for the vile thing that it is.

Are you saying that you genuinely don’t understand that if you or I had be born 4,000 yrs ago in Canaan or Mesopotamia, and were one of the people these teachings were initially presented to, we wouldn’t have a completely different understanding of it? A completely different way of thinking about it? That it wouldn’t contrast with how slaves were treated in surrounding cultures? That’s your starting point, from where you can begin to put together an understanding of how to approach this issue. Treating what was happening then in terms of your thinking now won’t lead anywhere.

 

[Rivga]

But in fact, atheists do have certain beliefs, such as that omnipotent beings do not exist.

If we use that logic and carry it through to anything else you start to see an issue:-

But in fact, Radagast does have certain beliefs, such as that Unicorns do not exist.
You belief system is not a-unicornist is it?

That's nonsense. The only way to not have a belief system is to believe nothing at all.

Again it such a statement needs to focus on what definition of belief you are using, I would strongly argue that:
"I believe in Trolls" is very different from "I believe the sun will rise in the morning"

We can go a little further

"I believe in Trolls and you should too"
Vs
"I believe the sun will rise in the morning, and you should too"

 

[Rivga]

Christianity was the main factor in abolishing slavery within Europe.

Again this is intellectually dishonest, as it is only part of the truth:
Christians (with scripture) helped abolish slavery vs Christians (with scripture) who wanted to continue with slavery and having started the whole thing up in the first place.

I once rescued my friends tooth by putting it in to milk and taking him and the tooth quickly to our local dentist. - is the story I told my Mother.
I did actually punch my friend in the mouth and this was the reason he had said tooth knocked out.
- under your logic there was a miscarriage of justice I was punished for my having rescued my friends tooth.

 

[Tom 1]

Again this is intellectually dishonest, as it is only part of the truth:
Christians (with scripture) helped abolish slavery vs Christians (with scripture) who wanted to continue with slavery and having started the whole thing up in the first place.

For a more rounded view on that I’d suggest reading Melvyn Bragg’s ‘Book of Books’. It’s an issue that is often oversimplified. If you’re not familiar with him Bragg is an atheist and I think you’d be hard pressed to find a more objective and disinterested intellectual. This issue is only a small part of the book but it’s a good starting point.

 

[Radagast]

Again this is intellectually dishonest, as it is only part of the truth:
Christians (with scripture) helped abolish slavery vs Christians (with scripture) who wanted to continue with slavery and having started the whole thing up in the first place.

That sentence isn't grammatical, so I'm not sure what it means, exactly. But Christianity certainly did not "start the whole thing up in the first place," because Christianity emerged in a world where slavery already existed.

In fact, Christianity moved to stop slavery in Europe, and it stayed stopped. After the end of Middle Ages, there was a slave trade involving Europeans outside of Europe (in places where money had more influence than the Bible), but William Wilberforce and others worked to prevent that as well.

 

[Radagast]

But in fact, Radagast does have certain beliefs, such as that Unicorns do not exist.
You belief system is not a-unicornist is it?

I am indeed a-unicornist, but that's not as big a deal as your atheism. I don't feel the need to troll pro-unicorn websites.

 

[Zoii]

Most likely disease of everything including the land itself. Some parasites remain in the soil infecting everything that comes in contact with it. Africa is plagued with feces-borne parasites that infect millions. We don't know what diseases were prevalent among mankind, but they were probably degenerative mentally as well as physically. Of course God selected the animals for the ark but they too might have carried diseases over as well. Regarding children I can only imagine how they also suffered from disease and congenital disorders as well. The story also reveals that mankind's behavior was "only evil continually". One can imagine just how evil mankind was by considering today's evil i.e. "as in the days of Noah".

Think about what mankind, animal kind, and plant kind, would look like today if not for medical interventions. We might need another ark.

If the land and plants and animals and humans were severely diseased, why did he keep two of every single species. Didnt God , by doing so, simply propagate a new diseased population of animals and humans. And what I dont get is why it all became diseased simply because some men were sinning. I mean obviously young children are innocent so they wouldnt be sinning. Unless of course the story is just that - an analogy in order to propagate a lesson

 

[Rivga]

I am indeed a-unicornist, but that's not as big a deal as your atheism. I don't feel the need to troll pro-unicorn websites.

This section is called Discussion and Debate and you are no way obliged to join in.

Additionally I could sit in my bubble surrounded mostly by atheists, and just assume that all Christians, apart from those in my family, are iniquitous and lack the Moral intelligence to tell right from wrong without the aid of a book.

Or I could engage and find out if this is misconception.