They seem to think that all our moral values and duties are just an illusion brought about by natural selection.
In a way, I suppose. Although calling them "illusions" is pretty droll.
Upvote
0
They seem to think that all our moral values and duties are just an illusion brought about by natural selection.
No offense, but that's irrelevant. The point was that even if your could, an atheist who believes that slavery is wrong would not have any moral ground on which to stand when confronting an antebellum era slave owner. On what ground could he declare to him that slavery was wrong, even during that time when all the world believed it was acceptable?This doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
First of all, I can't go back a couple hundred years ago and tell American slave owners that slavery is immoral.
Just as you can't go back a few thousand years ago and tell middle eastern people that the Biblically sanctioned slavery they partook in is immoral.
You drifted back into the discussion about man's fluctuating "moral compass" which I don't think any Christian denies.By today's standards slavery is wholly considered immoral (in advanced cultures) ... a few thousand years ago, slavery wasn't considered wholly immoral.
This is evidence for subjective morality, not for objective morality.
If morals were objective, then morals would not fluctuate in the way that they do fluctuate.
Are the practices of raping little girls, slavery, and antisemitism definitely "wrong" no matter what any human being may think, living or dead, past or present?
If you read my posts, you will see all I said is black holes are not a certainty. You seems to think that any don't acknoledge black holes are uneducated somewhat.Yes, I read it. Hawking does not deny the existence of black holes, he simply extends our knowlewdge of them.
Wow - that was a cheap shot!
Okay.
No religion is all about faith: pretending to have knowledge of something that is unknowable.
That is another strawman.
If you cannot deal honestly with the topic, please stop posting.
Let's review:
You said that "absolute morality was insrted in our souls".
I ask you to prove it.
You could not.
So, I gave you a tool to prove it.
And again you could not.
So, at this point your claim is totally without basis - kindly withdraw it.
And admit you are in error.
I said that because you are so interested in weights lol, even for law?BTW, MP3s can be measured in bytes too.
Just saying.
I personally think so, but I derive my stance on these things on the world and society around me. Are you saying the Bible is immoral?
However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46)
As I said, if you want to talk about OT issues of this sort (good questions I think, but in this thread we're talking about whether or not there are objective moral values and duties), I would prefer you start a separate thread.
So getting back to the subject, you seem to have agreed with me that "the practices of raping little girls, slavery, and antisemitism are definitely "wrong" no matter what any human being may think, living or dead, past or present", but then you add that you derive your stance from "the world and society around me". This sounds to me like you contradicted yourself. On one hand, you claim that these things are definitely wrong no matter what anybody thinks, and then on the other hand you say that you only think they are wrong because that's what the society around you thinks. Did you miss the phrases "definitely" and "no matter what any human being may think"?
I'm trying to understand you...I guess maybe you lack the convictions that these acts are really wrong, which seems to me to be quite obvious that they are wrong. I really do not mean to be offensive to you here. I think most everyone would declare that raping little girls has always been and will ever be wrong. So, I'm just trying to understand you and certainly do not mean to offend. So for me, if I saw a little girl getting raped, I would not hesitate to declare that she was being wronged, and I wouldn't have to take a poll from the society around me. Would you have to depend on a societal poll to tell you that it was wrong for the little girl to be raped? Is your conviction that this is a moral wrong that questionable?
I really don't mean to be offensive to you, so if you don't want to respond, that's ok. Have a good nite.
I'd be interested in knowing why that would be thought to be "support for" or an endorsement of slavery. It sounds like advice given to slaves.I certainly don't have to resort to the Old Testament for the Biblical support of slavery:
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5)
Everything you have said flies in the face of the argument for objective morality. Both you and I think slavery is bad for the same reason; because the society we were brought up in teaches us it's bad.
If you had been brought up in the middle east 2-3000 years ago in a privileged household, you may not have had the same view on slavery. (Reference the Bible)
Now, instead of doing mental gymnastics on the subject, just try to think about it without rose colored glasses.
Yeah you're right, telling slaves to serve their owners as they would serve Christ is in no way support for slavery ...I'd be interested in knowing why that would be thought to be "support for" or an endorsement of slavery. It sounds like advice given to slaves.
Yeah, and morals are obviously not inherently absolute. All you need is a layman's knowledge of history to see that.All right. The reason Christians look to God as the author of morality is because they believe morals are inherently absolute. That is the question of the thread, I believe.
I realize that you are reading it as approval, but it doesn't say that. Think it through. We often give advice ourselves to people in difficult situations and do not consider it approval of their misfortunes, etc. if we do so and/or do not include words to the effect of "Yeh. That's wrong! I condemn it absolutely, lest anyone get the wrong impression!"Yeah you're right, telling slaves to serve their owners as they would serve Christ is in no way support for slavery ...
Having quite a bit more than a layman's knowledge of history myself, I consider that to be simplistic. But if it's your POV, fine.Yeah, and morals are obviously not inherently absolute. All you need is a layman's knowledge of history to see that.
Slavery in the bible is NOT the same as slavery in the antebellum era. It's a common misunderstanding, which atheists often use to attack the bible. If you want to talk about that, please start a separate thread instead of trying to sidetrack from this thread's OP topic.I certainly don't have to resort to the Old Testament for the Biblical support of slavery:
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5)
I disagree. Some practices are very clearly understood by most everyone to have a negative moral value, such as raping little girls. Possibly, the only ones who might disagree with that most obvious negative moral value are pedophiles. The most productive question then is, why do some people declare that some practices are not necessarily morally wrong, while many others see those same practices as most obviously morally wrong?Everything you have said flies in the face of the argument for objective morality. Both you and I think slavery is bad for the same reason; because the society we were brought up in teaches us it's bad.
Unfortunately, you're misled thinking that the slavery referred to in the bible is even remotely comparable to what was called slavery in the antebellum era. Rather than arguing about this any further, I highly recommend that you read the book "Is God a Moral Monster?", which deals with this question as well as other difficult-to-understand biblical issues.If you had been brought up in the middle east 2-3000 years ago in a privileged household, you may not have had the same view on slavery. (Reference the Bible)
First of all, no ... slavery is slavery. You can't say that just because the Bible sanctioned it, it was different than slavery in America. And I'm not sidetracking. I'm using a book that I know you're familiar with to illustrate that morals are subjective dependent on the society you are in.Slavery in the bible is NOT the same as slavery in the antebellum era. It's a common misunderstanding, which atheists often use to attack the bible. If you want to talk about that, please start a separate thread instead of trying to sidetrack from this thread's OP topic.
I think that raping any young person (male or female) is morally wrong. I know that it has been accepted in early histroy though ... which goes back to my conclusion that morals are subjective.I disagree. Some practices are very clearly understood by most everyone to have a negative moral value, such as raping little girls. Possibly, the only ones who might disagree with that most obvious negative moral value are pedophiles. The most productive question then is, why do some people declare that some practices are not necessarily morally wrong, while many others see those same practices as most obviously morally wrong?
You're moving the goal posts.Unfortunately, you're misled thinking that the slavery referred to in the bible is even remotely comparable to what was called slavery in the antebellum era. Rather than arguing about this any further, I highly recommend that you read the book "Is God a Moral Monster?", which deals with this question as well as other difficult-to-understand biblical issues.
This is a good question, and I don't have a good answer for it. I look at it this way: I was brought up in a religious household by very loving parents. They were very moral people (as far as I can tell) but were no more moral than my family and I are (secular household). I did not derive my morals from a God, but rather my own personal judgment.But back to the subject at hand...as I said, the more productive question is: why do some people say that a certain practice is not necessarily wrong, when it's perfectly obvious to the rest of us? Is their morality more evolved than ours, or are they just justifying what they would like to be morally acceptable?
This question has always puzzled me:
Why do some christians think that morals come from god?
It can't work both ways, hypocrite?
Stop making fabrications out of what you think my intentions are. I've only said that morals are subjective and not objective. I've seen nothing to dissuade my stance. So either try harder or dance better.
Edit: And please stop editing your posts. It's disingenuous.
Edit: Edit: I realize my own hypocrisy within this post.