Judging God

[Guest shiloh357]

[

The Civil War was not JUST about slavery but you'd be silly to suggest it was "not really about slavery".

The Civil War was about the sovereignty of the states. It was about states rights vs. the Consitution of the United States. Slavery did not become an issue in the Civil War until near the end of it. To say that the Civil War was about slavery is simply incorrect.

[LuftWaffle]

When I said that we are advanced primates I wasn't suggesting that we weren't human, I'm stating that we are still part of the animal kingdom but we have the capacity to evaluate our actions.

In the context of morality, what in your opinion is "human"?

With regard to raping my girlfriend, according to Deuteronomy she would be forced to marry you, does that sound like the best way to handle the situation?

Why not just respond to my point instead of veering off into Deuteronomy? I asked you how advanced primates ought to behave and why the examples that I gave would be wrong. Surely you can come up with atleast some reason why raping your girlfriend would be wrong, other than a red herring, right?

How we establish our societies is up to us, we can live with dictators and cruel laws as they do in the Middle East or we can establish a free society where citizens have rights and laws are put into place to help forge a happy population. Which society would you rather live in?

I'm not sure I understand your point.

I never said survival is or should be the sole focus.

What are human minds ultimately for, according to your view?

Now if you could respond to my question about slavery, where do we Americans [or anyone else] get our moral base to fight against slavery and abolish it?

Firstly, you didn't ask the question to me, you asked it to Isaiah 6:8, who has answered you. If you meant for the question to be answered by all participants in this thread, then asking it in response to another poster isn't a good way to go about it.

Secondly, I'm not American and know little about American history or the North vs South business, so really, I have nothing to add to that.

What I can say is that the Christian faith is clear that all human life has intrinsic value, because all human beings are made in the image of God. That's our standard, what's yours?

[OneLight]

Stargaze, Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information, to begin with. By saying we are primates, you are saying God is also a primate, since He made us in His image, or better, in the image of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Genesis 1:26-28

Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

Who do you say God is?

[Guest shiloh357]

I mentioned several times in this thread already for reasons why we would want to establish a society where personal freedoms are protected.

That problem is that who gets to decide what personal freedoms we get to enjoy?? Who are you to tell me that it is wrong for me to walk into your house and take whatever I want?? What moral code is there that says that action is wrong? If I develop my own moral code that says that what you have is mine for the taking, on basis, on what standard do you maintain that my moral code is wrong?

I do not think there is any force/being outside of us telling us what is ok or not. We have choices to make, do we want to live in a barbaric and hostile society or one that values freedom and the ability to pursue happiness.

But what if being barbaric toward you is what makes me happy???

In the case of you attacking my girlfriend, you are invading her freedom and causing unnecessary harm.

Yes, but if the goal is to be happy and that makes someone happy, then why is it wrong? Why should YOUR rights get in the way of MY happiness? Why should I care about you or anyone else? Why not just let me do what makes me "happy?"

To me this is not different than a human evaluating what is poison and what is nourishing food.

It is entirely different. There is a set standard for determing what poison is and what is good for you in terms of nutrition. The body has to have certain essential nutrients (proteins, carbs, fat, vitamins, minerals and water) in adequate amounts to function. That is scientifically established. It is not an issue of conscience or an issue pertaining to any moral compass. You cannot survive on a diet of marshmellows and kool-aid.

[LuftWaffle]

I'm not sure I understand what you're asking.

I'm just trying to understand how you distinguish between human and primate from a moral perspective. This is a discussion about morality and dealing with the topic you've stated that we're advanced primates. I've put forth that saying that, really doesn't say anything about what humans ought to do, since primate behavior involves many things that would be unacceptible if humans did them. In otherwords, the notion that we're primates falls short of addressing human morality. How does one bridge that divide?

I mentioned several times in this thread already for reasons why we would want to establish a society where personal freedoms are protected.

But those reasons are purely subjective. Why should anybody care what's important to any particular individual?

I do not think there is any force/being outside of us telling us what is ok or not.

Why is that?

We have choices to make, do we want to live in a barbaric and hostile society or one that values freedom and the ability to pursue happiness.

Are you a materialist? In other words do you believe that all of reality can be explained in terms of particles and natural laws? If so, where does that leave "choice"?

In the case of you attacking my girlfriend, you are invading her freedom and causing unnecessary harm.

Sure, but that's a small price to pay for the greater pleasure my gang and I will have, plus our actions would improve the survival of the human race, since we're bigger and stronger than you. We're propagating our genes afterall.

To me this is not different than a human evaluating what is poison and what is nourishing food. We may bicker on what is "delicious", but I think we can all agree on what is poison or "not good for you". In this same way I think we can establish what is damaging to society and what is healthy.

What do you mean by "good for you"?

In what sense are you using the word "good" here? Good in terms of survival?

continued...

[LuftWaffle]

It's simple, if you had a choice, would you rather live in a country that values freedom and fights against unnecessary harm or one that doesn't?

It depends.

What if the free and comfortable society is evil? and the opposite is good?

I can imagine a society that is very properous, where everybody lives in great comfort, where life expectancy is very high, where the population is growing fast, but this society is totally evil. Riddled with all kinds of immorality.

Then one can imagine a society that struggles, living in constant threat, but they desire moral purity.

See, the problem here is that you're assuming what you're trying to prove, I think. You've grounded morality in terms of what's good for people in terms of increasing pleasure and promoting survival. But what's pleasurable or aids survival is entirely subjective, and really doesn't say anything about what is right or wrong.

As an additional point I'd like to ask why my preference matters? Suppose I'd prefer to live in a harsh society, full of suffering and malice, because it is my belief that the pleasant and prosperous society will make me soft. What then? Notice how subjective the notion that you're offering becomes?

What are human minds ultimately for, according to your view?

Thinking, reasoning, evaluating the data our senses give us, survival etc.

To what end? Notice that I asked you what minds are ultimately for.

That's interesting because earlier you stated "So ultimately, when you ask us to "Think about that for a bit", are you asking us to evaluate the truth value of your post, or should we reflect on the happiness and survival value of what you said?"

Either you forgot you said that or you're playing a game, if it's the latter please don't respond to me in the future. I want dialogue with honest people who are not playing games.

Surely you can see that my comment wasn't so much about what you wanted Isaiah to think about as it was about thinking itself. In other words I wasn't talking about slavery, but about rationality.

You don't have to be an American to make a statement on slavery. Do you believe that slavery is wrong?

Yes, slavery in the sense of exploitation of those one deems as inferior, is wrong.

I agree that humans have intrinsic value however I think we can establish a better standard than what is provided in the Bible. This is my own personal opinion of course.

If you say better standard, then it implies that you have some means of comparison, right? What standard do you use to compare which standard, biblical or not, is better...

What better standard could you come up with than do unto others as you would have them do unto you?

I'm curious, why do you believe that humans have intrinsic value?

[Isaiah 6:8]

Because in being a social animal, it's not all about you

Even animals [social] don't act psychopathic the way you're talking. Try to keep a level head in the discussion so that we're more down to earth in our dialogue. Even animals scold and punish rogue members that harm others or get out of line. I know I have the mental capacity to evaluate my actions and ability to function in a social group, those who have problems with this are usually locked up behind bars because they're considered insane. At this point it sounds to me that you're saying you're ability to think and evaluate your actions is no better than a predator in the jungle, that is unfortunate to hear.

You can't survive very well where lunatics and murderers are the norm. I'll ask one more time, would you rather live in a society full of anarchy and suffering or one where personal freedoms are protected [so long as those freedoms don't infringe on someone elses].

But who decides which freedoms infringe on others? You see some peoples "Freedoms" Infringe on another's freedom, and yet neither are deadly or dangerous, just a matter of comfort. How do you then decide what is the most "Moral" then?

Again you keep avoiding my core question.

Where do you as an unbeliever get your morals. I am not speaking of individual morals, I am not speaking of Murder or rape or any specific thing that you find wrong. I am speaking of Morals in General.

Also by the standard of the Bible all proven rapists were executed. The verse in question is weather or not the women screamed for help or not. In other words, if there was any chance of it being consensual, not rape then they were forced to marry.

So no Rape was not and is not condoned in the Bible.

Maybe I can make it a bit more clear.

Where do you as an atheist get your own private moral code.

[LuftWaffle]

God is a construction of humans to assign personage to things we can't explain. It's my belief that before mankind had any good understanding of the natural world, everything we saw around us appeared to be governed by unseen forces. This is was the beginning of religion.

What do you base this belief on?

[LuftWaffle]

Because in being a social animal, it's not all about you

Do you think that reminding a sadistic tyrant that they're a social animal, and that it's not all about them, will be effective in preventing their tyranny? Perhaps some people just aren't social animals, are those excused for their anti-social behavior?

Try to keep a level head in the discussion so that we're more down to earth in our dialogue. Even animals scold and punish rogue members that harm others or get out of line. I know I have the mental capacity to evaluate my actions and ability to function in a social group, those who have problems with this are usually locked up behind bars because they're considered insane. At this point it sounds to me that you're saying you're ability to think and evaluate your actions is no better than a predator in the jungle, that is unfortunate to hear.

Your point that animals scold and punish isn't true at all. There's no justice system in the animal kingdom in a moral sense. Animals will show dominant behavior in establishing a hierarchy or will attack to protect their food or their territory. It has nothing to do with punishment in a moral sense. It is all driven by self-preservation. But if we're going to get our moral cues from the animal kingdom, does that not establish my point about behaving like advanced primates in your house?

Thus far you haven't explained what humans ought to do, but you've mentioned alot about what animals do. Is it fair to say that without God, we're morally left with a) making up our own morality and b) copying animals.

[mizzdy]

It would seem that those who do not believe in God get their morality from the govt., kings, priests, ruling bodies that surround them. We can see that with each conquering countries or even down to tribes, what the strongest say rules. The civil war was not really about slavery but thats a whole other subject yet I know that is the common way of thinking for the reasoning behind the war. It is man who messes up man, even righteous rulers are subject to the decay of this world and only by the help of God, the laws He established for all creation can we be morally upright in this world.

shalom,

Mizz

The Civil War was not JUST about slavery but you'd be silly to suggest it was "not really about slavery". Which laws are you specifically referring to [that God gave us]?

God set the laws of everything, the rotation of the planets, gravity and the laws we live by in our walk with Him. As a nonbeliever you more than likely disagree with this. No don't think anyone would be silly to suggest it was 'not really all about slavery', Lincoln used it as a politician does, a good thing getting rid of slavery, a terrible time for all involved.

shalom,

Mizz