Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
"The concepts of "contingency" and "necessity" to refer to beings is a peculiar habit of theology, rather than philosophy."
Why do you pretend that you know what you're talking about? You don't know what you're talking about. And you pretending that you know what you're talking about is borderline lying.
In philosophy there's a branch called Ontology which deals with being: what it means, the kinds of being, etc. And contingent and necessary being are helpful definitions that are indeed used in philosophy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology
Again, the concepts of "contingency" and "necessity" are only meaningful in metaphysics, not in the physical world.
"Again, the concepts of "contingency" and "necessity" are only meaningful in metaphysics, not in the physical world."
You said theology, not metaphysics.
And you seem to not understand what metaphysics is, either. Oh dear.
Yeah, I think I've wasted enough time with you. Did you at least read the article on Ontology and in particular the part that talks about necessary and contingent existence?
myusernamekthx:
Actually, I said that using the the concepts of "contingency" and "necessity" to refer to beings is a peculiar trait of theology, rather than philosophy. Using the concepts outside of metaphysics is not at all meaningful, hence why I mentioned it is a peculiar trait of theology. Ontology is concerned with definitions, rather than the world of facts.
"your moral beliefs are contingent upon socioeconomic and cultural influences as well as whims. If you were born during a time when chattel slavery was normal and legal, then you would have probably accepted it while God would have looked down on you knowing full-well that chattel slavery is wrong."
Your moral beliefs are based on archaic laws written by people 2,000 years ago. And if you had been born then, your law would ask that you stone to death the following people: pagans, your disobedient child, any woman who is raped but is too scared to scream, gay men, the men, women & children of whatever community God wanted to wipe from the earth.
Morality changes. As humanity evolves, so does our morality. I hope that in another 200 years, our morality will have evolved even further and they will look back on us like the slave owners of the past.
"Your moral beliefs are based on archaic laws written by people 2,000 years ago."
So? That's not an argument.
"And if you had been born then, your law would ask that you stone to death the following people: pagans, your disobedient child, any woman who is raped but is too scared to scream, gay men, the men, women & children of whatever community God wanted to wipe from the earth."
Setting aside your ignorance of the Old Testament, let's say that is true. On what grounds can you say that stoning pagans is wrong?
"Morality changes."
So why are you whining about people stoning pagans, thousands of years ago? Based on your own logic you shouldn't mind since "morality changes."
"As humanity evolves, so does our morality."
How do you know that these moral changes are moving towards good and not evil?
"I hope that in another 200 years, our morality will have evolved even further and they will look back on us like the slave owners of the past."
What if we moved back towards slavery? What if in 200 years chattel slavery was once again law (for the US)? Would they then be able to look back on us and say 'Obviously they had it wrong, since they were from 200 years ago.'
@myusernamekthx
My comment was in response to yours. "your moral beliefs are contingent upon socioeconomic and cultural influences as well as whims." I was merely pointing out that Christian morality has changed over time as well, even within the last couple hundred years. And you, also, would be stuck in the barbaric morality of that time.
And of course I "mind" about people being murdered throughout history. I even stated that I think our current morality is imperfect and will continue to get better over time, meaning we must confront whatever lack of morality we see. I don't actually think that "good" is a real thing. Nor evil. Morality for me is: (I'll steal from Amnesty International:) taking a stand for people's "rights to physical and mental integrity, freedom of conscience and expression, and freedom from discrimination." I believe that this creates more joy, fulfillment, and workability on our planet. And I'm all for that.
I could be wrong. I'm going with both my reason and my gut in choosing what I stand for. But I would absolutely take that uncertainty over trusting a "god" that someone happened to write about 2,000 years ago (who does some seriously atrocious things).
"@myusernamekthx
My comment was in response to yours. "your moral beliefs are contingent upon socioeconomic and cultural influences as well as whims." I was merely pointing out that Christian morality has changed over time as well"
No it hasn't. The teachings of Jesus are the same and so are the ten commandments.
Christians, themselves, have changed though. Is that what you mean? There's no doubt in my mind that 200 years from now (if humanity is still around) there will be people who call themselves Christians or followers of Jesus who believe that marrying babies is something God intended.
"And of course I "mind" about people being murdered throughout history. I even stated that I think our current morality is imperfect and will continue to get better over time"
How do you know that our current moral beliefs are imperfect and how do you know that they're superior to the moral beliefs of people from thousands of years ago?
"I don't actually think that "good" is a real thing. Nor evil."
So you're saying that there is no moral progress, in other words. It's impossible for you to say that our current understanding of morality is superior to the moral understanding of peasants from thousands of years ago. All you can say is that things are different.
"Morality for me is: (I'll steal from Amnesty International:) taking a stand for people's "rights to physical and mental integrity, freedom of conscience and expression, and freedom from discrimination." I believe that this creates more joy, fulfillment, and workability on our planet. And I'm all for that."
What do you say to a person or a group of people who believe the opposite? Do you just hope there's more of you than them?
"I could be wrong. I'm going with both my reason and my gut in choosing what I stand for."
What if a person's gut tells them that little girls are attractive? Should they follow their gut?
@myusename "How do you know that our current moral beliefs are imperfect and how do you know that they're superior to the moral beliefs of people from thousands of years ago?"
I don't know. Morality is not black and white. We've been trying to figure it out since the beginning of time. For me, morality is what benefits us as individuals and as a whole. I'm all for eradicating hunger, war and suffering and supporting peace and equality. Because I would rather see humanity flourish than suffer.
"What do you say to a person or a group of people who believe the opposite? Do you just hope there's more of you than them?"
I'd try to convince them of my view of morality. I'd try to show them what the world can be like when we lessen everyone's suffering. Show them that compassion creates joy in individuals lives, as well as helping society operate more efficiently. And then yes, the majority often gets more say in how things go - though having people in power with a certain view can be worth more than individual citizens. That's how it's been throughout history - some governments have succeeded in oppressing the majority of their people.
I don't need God to tell me to not kill or rape or torture someone. I also don't need him to tell me how valuable kindness and compassion and justice are. And it's concerning to me that so many religious people hold to these principles only because it has been commanded of them.
@myusername Re: "On what grounds can you say that stoning pagans is wrong?"
Interesting question. My wife happens to be Pagan. Anybody brings a rock anywhere near her and they will find out really quick and very uncomfortably exactly why I think it is wrong. No verbal explanation needed.
"Now, if you want to say that it just so happens that God's moral nature is one where He enjoys murder, rape, etc., then that's up to you. Obviously, that isn't the case going by the 10 commandments and the teachings of Jesus, for instance."
Jesus commanded "salves obey your masters, even the cruel ones" so slavers could rape their slaves and all Jesus had to say was that they had to obey the master who raped them. The ten commandments makes no prohibition on rape or even paedophilia. I don't think you have made a single remotely intelligent point in any of your posts since you've been here, and I am dubious that you ever will.
"Jesus commanded "salves obey your masters, even the cruel ones""
That's not from Jesus but from Colossians (Paul); and what is said here is akin to saying, "respect your employers," so in your case that would mean do a good job cleaning toilets at your local Walmart and try to respect your boss.
You're such an ignoramus that you can't even get your atheist propaganda straight. You appear to be ignorant of almost all subjects.
And you seem to be comparing the chattel slavery found in the US with the slavery found in the old testament. The slavery found in ancient Israel was servitude. It meant working for a person for several years to pay back some sort of debt and it was something that existed long before God started interacting with the Israelis. And when God did start interacting with the Israelis, He began issuing commands to protect slaves, moving them towards eventually eliminating slavery altogether.
"The ten commandments makes no prohibition on rape or even paedophilia"
Actually, that would fall under adultery in the ten commandments.
So you know nothing about economics and you know nothing about Christian theology. Should we move on to science now?
@myusernamekthx the bible does not explicitly forbid rape. Indeed, there are numerous instances where it encourages rape. There are cases where rape is a property crime, but there is never an explicit ban on rape.
Additionally, the bible does not ban rape within marriage, nor does it ban the marrying of children.
Attachments
Attach Image/Video?:
"the bible does not explicitly forbid rape."
That falls under adultery.
"Additionally, the bible does not ban rape within marriage, nor does it ban the marrying of children."
Rape is adultery and you'd have to define what you mean by child. There are adults today who aren't as smart or mature as children from thousands of years ago because of our longer life-spans and decreased incentive to "grow up." In other words, the 14 year olds from thousands of years ago aren't like the 14 year olds of today.
@Myusernamekthx: A maximally powerful being would have necessary existence"
That's rubbish. You're trying to logic god into existence, but your whole argument rests on the concept of "maximally powerful", which you can't define or even conceive. It's just a rehash of the ontological argument put forward by Aquinas, which is based on the idea of perfection. Perfection and maximal power are just imaginary concepts that have different meanings (hence no meaning) in the minds of every human being who hears them. That's a pretty shaky foundation for a supreme being.
The Kleenex argument is more convincing.
God would have looked down on you knowing full-well that chattel slavery is wrong.
Double rubbish! God advocates slavery in the Old Testament. Jesus acknowledges its existence without challenging it.
"That's rubbish. You're trying to logic god into existence"
No. I was merely defining what God means in contemporary philosophy.
However, there's an argument for the existence of God called the ontological argument, which is what I think you're referring to. I'm not sure about that argument, to be honest. But if I were forced to give my opinion on it then I'd say I believe it to be rational.
"Double rubbish! God advocates slavery in the Old Testament."
The slavery found in ancient Israel is indentured servitude, far different from the chattel slavery found in US history. And it was a practice created by human beings and it existed long before God chose the Jews as His people. However, God did issue commands to the Israelis, limiting the practice, creating protections for slaves, which eventually lead to the complete abolishment of the practice.
@myusernamekthxfar different from the chattel slavery found in US history.
I'm sure that a great comfort to the slaves in Israel, who were beaten and used for sex (e.g., Abraham and his wife's handmaid).
Ever heard of the Curse of Ham?
"I'm sure that a great comfort to the slaves in Israel, who were beaten and used for sex (e.g., Abraham and his wife's handmaid)."
Where did you get this idea that the indentured servants in ancient Israel were used as sex slaves and that it was considered a good thing, and that God told them that it was a good thing?
Abraham's wife (Sarah) couldn't conceive and thus couldn't continue Abraham's lineage, so he used Sarah's handmaiden as a surrogate. Where are you getting rape and sex slave from that?
"Ever heard of the Curse of Ham?"
Let me guess. Something else from the Bible that you don't understand or that you're about to lie about?
@Myuser: Let me guess.
You mean you don't know? Here's a clue. It's in the story of Noah.
"You mean you don't know? Here's a clue. It's in the story of Noah."
Ah. So it is indeed something else from the Bible that you don't understand.
The people who ran the Atlantic slave trade understood it well enough.
But why don't you share your superior understanding of the Bible. Tell us the real meaning of that story. I'll bet it was just symbolic or hypothetical.
"But why don't you share your superior understanding of the Bible. Tell us the real meaning of that story. I'll bet it was just symbolic or hypothetical."
I would if I thought you were capable of critical thinking and learning. You can't even wrap your head around the idea that the chattel slavery found in US history is different from the indentured servitude found in ancient Israel--and that should be an uncontroversial and common point. Getting into the nuances and history of the Bible would be a huge waste of time. I'll suggest a book though: Is God a Moral Monster? by Paul Copan.
myusernamekthx: I would if I thought you were capable of critical thinking and learning.
Hah. You would if you could.
Do you think the Israelites only had indentured slaves? What about all the war captives? They were treated much more harshly and could be bought, sold, or inherited as chattels. The Curse of Ham was used to justify first the enslavement of Canaanites, later all foreign slaves, and even later the Atlantic slave trade.
Getting into the nuances and history of the Bible would be a huge waste of time.
LOL. And it would probably give you a hernia you arrogant pipsqueak.
"Do you think the Israelites only had indentured slaves? What about all the war captives?"
So you went from claiming that indentured servants in ancient Israel are equivalent to the chattel slaves found in US history to ancient Israel didn't treat its war prisoners well?
@myuser... So you went from claiming that indentured servants in ancient Israel are equivalent to the chattel slaves found in US history to ancient Israel didn't treat its war prisoners well?
No. Do you need a remedial reading course?
"No. Do you need a remedial reading course?"
Oh. So, you're holding on to the false belief that indentured servitude in ancient Israel is the same as the chattel slavery found in US history, in addition to holding the trivial belief that Israel didn't treat its war prisoners well?
You're getting incoherent. Israel turned war captives into slaves. Do you understand that?
"You're getting incoherent. Israel turned war captives into slaves. Do you understand that?"
Yes, and a slave in ancient Israel wasn't like a slave in the US during the 1700s. Do you understand that?
Pages