Christianity v. Secular Humanism

[BilliardsBall]

You literally said exactly that:

'Slavery is sometimes moral. The Bible contains absolute morality, so for example, Gentiles may be Israelite slaves, Jews may not. Again, sometimes it is moral in the Bible. Or if you like it is absolutely moral to have a Gentile slave (based on certain conditions) and etc."

Yes, slavery is sometimes moral, when the slavery situation is combined with X, X slavery is absolutely moral. When combined with Y, it is absolutely immoral.

You'd agree that waiving a gun without firing it to stop oneself from being raped is moral or amoral. Using a gun to commit rape is immoral.

Since we're debating the resolution "The Bible contains absolute morality," you have to start with recognition that the Bible gives different weights to levels of morality, situational ethics, etc. just as you do.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What would be an example of a huge error Luke made--excluding your bias about supernatural things--he made errors of geography, of history?

Definitely of history. And don't accuse others of your sins. Practically all modern Biblical scholars accept the fact that Luke screwed the pooch.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, slavery is sometimes moral, when the slavery situation is combined with X, X slavery is absolutely moral. When combined with Y, it is absolutely immoral.

You'd agree that waiving a gun without firing it to stop oneself from being raped is moral or amoral. Using a gun to commit rape is immoral.

Since we're debating the resolution "The Bible contains absolute morality," you have to start with recognition that the Bible gives different weights to levels of morality, situational ethics, etc. just as you do.

Wow! What is this magic "X" stuff. If I can get my hands on some I can start my own plantation!

But I do like your absolute morality is relative claim. Oh my!

 

[BilliardsBall]

Definitely of history. And don't accuse others of your sins. Practically all modern Biblical scholars accept the fact that Luke screwed the pooch.

Without accusing you of sin, your comments that you are more aware of your internal biases and subconscious biases than me is wrong.

For example, in this post, you made multiple fallacies including ad populum, presentist thinking, an appeal to authority and also, the assumption that you know the Bible a fraction as well as I know it--likely the most relevant fallacy you've brought to this discussion.

I may need to repeat to you I have a Bachelor's in Religion/NT studies from a secular university, where I've already debated a lot of your issues with faculty, and shown them to be off base.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Without accusing you of sin, your comments that you are more aware of your internal biases and subconscious biases than me is wrong.

For example, in this post, you made multiple fallacies including ad populum, presentist thinking, an appeal to authority and also, the assumption that you know the Bible a fraction as well as I know it--likely the most relevant fallacy you've brought to this discussion.

I may need to repeat to you I have a Bachelor's in Religion/NT studies from a secular university, where I've already debated a lot of your issues with faculty, and shown them to be off base.

Please, you are incredibly blind to your own biases.

And your claim to have a bachelor's degree doesn't mean a thing if you cannot reason rationally and logically. You know that if you studied the matter at all that the first census of Judea was the Census of Quirinius. And that was dated 6CE. Worse yet a census taxes people on where they live, not where they are from.

Study the works of Richard Carrier. He can read and understand the language of that time and he explains why the apologists are wrong.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Please, you are incredibly blind to your own biases.

And your claim to have a bachelor's degree doesn't mean a thing if you cannot reason rationally and logically. You know that if you studied the matter at all that the first census of Judea was the Census of Quirinius. And that was dated 6CE. Worse yet a census taxes people on where they live, not where they are from.

Study the works of Richard Carrier. He can read and understand the language of that time and he explains why the apologists are wrong.

Those two areas have already been sufficiently addressed by apologists.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Those two areas have already been sufficiently addressed by apologists.

The problem is that the apologists tend to render themselves impotent by being liars for Jesus for too often. They do not understand the language and quite often they try to change the interpretation of the Bible to support their claims. You referred to apologists, ( AKA Liars for Jesus) because you know that real scholars make the same claims about Luke and his Nativity.

You cannot have it both ways. You cannot claim that Luke is historically accurate and then when real historians find a severe problem with Luke try to claim that non-historians have explained it. You effectively refute yourself by doing so.

 

[BilliardsBall]

The problem is that the apologists tend to render themselves impotent by being liars for Jesus for too often. They do not understand the language and quite often they try to change the interpretation of the Bible to support their claims. You referred to apologists, ( AKA Liars for Jesus) because you know that real scholars make the same claims about Luke and his Nativity.

You cannot have it both ways. You cannot claim that Luke is historically accurate and then when real historians find a severe problem with Luke try to claim that non-historians have explained it. You effectively refute yourself by doing so.

That wasn't my claim. My claim was there are hundreds of details that archaeologists have verified in Luke/Acts and two issues you are claiming that are counter claims.

Also, your claim that apologists "do not understand the language" goes against the fact that apologists tend to go to the source languages when claimants make errors from the English or another Bible translation language. This represents, for example, the claim you made when you refused to discuss the Greek roots for what we say in English is "inspired".

 

[Subduction Zone]

That wasn't my claim. My claim was there are hundreds of details that archaeologists have verified in Luke/Acts and two issues you are claiming that are counter claims.

Also, your claim that apologists "do not understand the language" goes against the fact that apologists tend to go to the source languages when claimants make errors from the English or another Bible translation language. This represents, for example, the claim you made when you refused to discuss the Greek roots for what we say in English is "inspired".

And most of those details are just locations from my understanding. Not history. Plus if you ignore the obvious misses then any of your supposed hits come.into question. And apologists are worthless, what makes you think that their interpretation of inspired holds water? It appears that they are making the typical beginner's mistake of defining by etymology. That works some of the time only.

You need a source better than liars for Jesus.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

1. We can't know whether or not God exists, so it's up to humans to solve our own problems.

Sounds about right to me.

* Jesus Christ is source and power for problem solving

This is your religious belief. Note how the "counterpoint" is talking about knowledge not about beliefs.

Having said that: a single pair of hands working will accomplish loads more then a thousand hands clasped in prayer.

Tell you what, when we both are out of food... I'll go to the supermarket and buy some. You can stay home and pray for Jesus to deliver food. I bet that at the end of the day, I'll be the one who's eating dinner.

2. Research, science, and education hold the keys to human progress.

Yeps.

* Acknowledge God for giving us these tools from the human mind

That we got those tools from your god is, again, merely your religious belief.
Be that as it may, it's not a counterpoint. Either way (whether we get our faculties from biology or from your god or from space unicorns), research and education still hold the keys to human progress.

3. Humans got here through evolution and we continue to evolve.

Yes. As the very established and demonstrable theory of evolution explains.

* Man has a propensity to behave as a degenerate, and needs, therefore, Christian regeneration

This is once again merely your religious belief. And a rather odd one at that. One that only further establishes christianity as the ginormous guilt trip that it is.
Regardless, this too doesn't seem to act as a counterpoint at all. It is instead merely your dehumanizing opinion. Christian snake oil. Asserted sick and then conveniently providing the only cure. Typical con-man tactics.

4. Humans develop their own moral understanding of right and wrong without the need of divine assistance.

Yup. Through experience and by learning about the world around us (and thus better understanding the consequences of our actions).

* Babysit children and see this process at work! LOL

Children actually have an instinctive sense of fairness and justice. It's a result of a trait called empathy. Unless they are at risk of psychopathy off course...

Having said that, education surely is part of moral development. So again not a counter point. It's not so that every individual has to work out a moral framework from scratch. We also learn from those around us and those that came before us.

5. We should not judge people who arrive at moral conclusions that differ from our own.

Disagree.

* Christians should not judge people with different moral conclusions, but we can discuss and debate the issues

Your bible doesn't seem to agree with that at all.
cfr the many genocides and brutal calls for executions. Like putting gay people to death when they have sex. No "crimes" are committed, assuming it is consensual. So to punish such an act, is purely from a moral perspective. Meaning christianity does not agree with the moral conclusion of the gay people who don't see a problem with it. The bible doesn't say "discuss and debate". Instead it says "kill them".

6. The problems we are facing today require governments throughout the world to work together in cooperation with one another.

Sure.

* The coming one-world government, like all empires, will be at its root antithetical to God

1. what "coming one-world government"? What are you talking about exactly?

2. again not a counter point, but instead it seems nothing but some "doomsday end times" prophecy which only matters in your religion.

 

[SkepticThinker]

What would be an example of a huge error Luke made--excluding your bias about supernatural things--he made errors of geography, of history?

Nobody should accept supernatural anything unless and until the supernatural is demonstrated to exist in the first place.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yes, slavery is sometimes moral, when the slavery situation is combined with X, X slavery is absolutely moral. When combined with Y, it is absolutely immoral.

Then your Bible does not contain pronouncements about absolute morality, as you claim.

You'd agree that waiving a gun without firing it to stop oneself from being raped is moral or amoral. Using a gun to commit rape is immoral.

Yes I would. But I am coming from the standpoint of a humanist and an ethical consequentialist.

So you agree that using a gun is not always immoral; rather, it depends on the situation/context. So you are now arguing from my point of view instead of the one that says Biblical morality is absolute.

Since we're debating the resolution "The Bible contains absolute morality," you have to start with recognition that the Bible gives different weights to levels of morality, situational ethics, etc. just as you do.

The it's not absolute morality we are talking about at all. If stealing is considered moral in one situation but immoral in another, then I have no idea where your talk about absolute morality is coming from. Context doesn't come into play when discussing absolute morality.

 

[BilliardsBall]

And most of those details are just locations from my understanding. Not history. Plus if you ignore the obvious misses then any of your supposed hits come.into question. And apologists are worthless, what makes you think that their interpretation of inspired holds water? It appears that they are making the typical beginner's mistake of defining by etymology. That works some of the time only.

You need a source better than liars for Jesus.

You are highly intelligent and well-read, so I'm sincerely interested in any atheist arguments that don't come from the usual two lines:

"I don't believe X"

"Arguments from silence"

Example relevant to our Exodus discussion: Argument From Silence - "There is no archaeology verifying the Israelites lived in a desert [with shifting sands that cover everything in a few decades], in nomadic tents, while being forbidden to erect any permanent structures, 3,500 years ago [despite a major power shift in Egypt from foreign invaders after Egypt was decimated, and other archaeology confirming Israelite/Egypt conflicts as described in the Bible]."

 

[BilliardsBall]

Sounds about right to me.



This is your religious belief. Note how the "counterpoint" is talking about knowledge not about beliefs.

Having said that: a single pair of hands working will accomplish loads more then a thousand hands clasped in prayer.

Tell you what, when we both are out of food... I'll go to the supermarket and buy some. You can stay home and pray for Jesus to deliver food. I bet that at the end of the day, I'll be the one who's eating dinner.



Yeps.



That we got those tools from your god is, again, merely your religious belief.
Be that as it may, it's not a counterpoint. Either way (whether we get our faculties from biology or from your god or from space unicorns), research and education still hold the keys to human progress.



Yes. As the very established and demonstrable theory of evolution explains.



This is once again merely your religious belief. And a rather odd one at that. One that only further establishes christianity as the ginormous guilt trip that it is.
Regardless, this too doesn't seem to act as a counterpoint at all. It is instead merely your dehumanizing opinion. Christian snake oil. Asserted sick and then conveniently providing the only cure. Typical con-man tactics.



Yup. Through experience and by learning about the world around us (and thus better understanding the consequences of our actions).



Children actually have an instinctive sense of fairness and justice. It's a result of a trait called empathy. Unless they are at risk of psychopathy off course...

Having said that, education surely is part of moral development. So again not a counter point. It's not so that every individual has to work out a moral framework from scratch. We also learn from those around us and those that came before us.



Disagree.



Your bible doesn't seem to agree with that at all.
cfr the many genocides and brutal calls for executions. Like putting gay people to death when they have sex. No "crimes" are committed, assuming it is consensual. So to punish such an act, is purely from a moral perspective. Meaning christianity does not agree with the moral conclusion of the gay people who don't see a problem with it. The bible doesn't say "discuss and debate". Instead it says "kill them".



Sure.



1. what "coming one-world government"? What are you talking about exactly?

2. again not a counter point, but instead it seems nothing but some "doomsday end times" prophecy which only matters in your religion.

You're intelligent, so I'd sincerely love some arguments that aren't the usual "I don't believe that . . . " and arguments from silence.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Nobody should accept supernatural anything unless and until the supernatural is demonstrated to exist in the first place.

There was little need to repeat to me the typical skeptic's "argument" of "I don't believe that X . . . " and an argument from silence. You did both in one sentence.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Then your Bible does not contain pronouncements about absolute morality, as you claim.


Yes I would. But I am coming from the standpoint of a humanist and an ethical consequentialist.

So you agree that using a gun is not always immoral; rather, it depends on the situation/context. So you are now arguing from my point of view instead of the one that says Biblical morality is absolute.


The it's not absolute morality we are talking about at all. If stealing is considered moral in one situation but immoral in another, then I have no idea where your talk about absolute morality is coming from. Context doesn't come into play when discussing absolute morality.

Slavery of an Israelite is absolutely immoral (Bible law), and slavery of a Gentile is moral (Bible law).

Context is in play when defining terms then proceeding to moral questions. For example, a killing could be murder or self-defense. First the category is placed, then the morality in most cases is set. If you refuse to understand that self-defense is moral/right to liberty and murder is immoral, how can I help you understand slavery?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You're intelligent, so I'd sincerely love some arguments that aren't the usual "I don't believe that . . . " and arguments from silence.

I have no idea what you are referring to.

Are you accusing me of having used such "arguments" in the post you are replying to?
If yes, can you be a bit less vague and pinpoint exactly where I did so, and which "argument" I supposedly made that you object to?

As your post is now written, I have no idea what you are talking about and are just throwing blind accusations around. From where I'm sitting, this seems no more or less then a rather pathetic attempt at running away from the points raised by handwaving it away with a vague one-liner that isn't here nor there...

Up to you if you wish to demonstrate otherwise and get a bit concrete.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There was little need to repeat to me the typical skeptic's "argument" of "I don't believe that X . . . " and an argument from silence. You did both in one sentence.

Your response makes no sense at all.

How is what he said not valid?

Why would you believe X if X isn't supported by evidence?

For example, I'll go ahead and assume you don't believe that there's an undetectable dragon that lives in my garage. So why don't you?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Slavery of an Israelite is absolutely immoral (Bible law), and slavery of a Gentile is moral (Bible law).

Please explain the difference in moral terms.
Provide the moral argument that underpins this moral conclusion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are highly intelligent and well-read, so I'm sincerely interested in any atheist arguments that don't come from the usual two lines:

"I don't believe X"

"Arguments from silence"

Example relevant to our Exodus discussion: Argument From Silence - "There is no archaeology verifying the Israelites lived in a desert [with shifting sands that cover everything in a few decades], in nomadic tents, while being forbidden to erect any permanent structures, 3,500 years ago [despite a major power shift in Egypt from foreign invaders after Egypt was decimated, and other archaeology confirming Israelite/Egypt conflicts as described in the Bible]."

Then try not to use blatant logical fallacies when people are having a discussion. Also you do not understand how to properly apply those arguments yourself, as you just demonstrated. The problem with Israelites not leaving any evidence is that is a case where they should have. It is not an argument from ignorance or an argument from silence to argue against the myths of Exodus to use that reasoning.

So instead of instantly refuting yourself by demonstrating that you do not understand how to apply the arguments that you just tried to what exactly do you want?