Christianity v. Secular Humanism

[SkepticThinker]

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.

You can't claim or act as though the supernatural exists without any evidence.

That was my point there.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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?

I don't think this addresses my point about your beliefs and assertions at all.

Of course I understand that self-defense is a moral right. But I'm not the one claiming absolute morality that comes from the Bible/God in the form of commandments. That would be you.

You say morality is absolute, and then demonstrate that it isn't.
You say slavery is immoral for some, but not for others. Sorry to tell you, but that's moral relativism.


This brings up another question in my mind .. What is morality about, in your opinion? You take issue with my saying that morality is about the well-being of sentient creatures/human beings. Because I don't see what else it could possibly be about.
You assert that morality comes from the Bible/God, which I don't really think answers the question. So what is God's goal or purpose, with respect to these moral pronouncements? Does God care about the well-being of sentient creatures?

 

[BilliardsBall]

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?

It is the case that nomadic people in tents who took everything with them to build a new nation should have left behind . . . what, exactly? Even their worship center was mobile, a tent with chapters of Bible instruction referring to its travel--for a people who lived in 42 places over 40 years. The Israelites were never supposed to LIVE or establish in the Sinai but in CAANAN. They were told in the Bible to take everything, their tools, their plundering of Egypt, there cattle--to build a theocratic nation elsewhere, for which there is IMMENSE archaeology in modern Israel.

And as always, you ignore my lines of logic, for example, I just explained how desert items are covered over--in the Negev and Sinai, for example, it's a not infrequent occurrence to find an entire tank under sand from modern wartime. And you expect that archaeologists can cover thousands of square miles adequately--when the routes of the Exodus are debated, when the sands have shifted for millennia, when an archaeologist can dig 50 feet from an Exodus finding and not know it. Watch The Dig on Netflix to understand how Sutton Hoo was found a few yards from where fruitless digs were undertaken...

The issue between us isn't logic--it's your giant tu quoque fallacy. I say devout evolutionists, for example, are misinformed, I don't call them all "liars for Darwin". And since you call ALL apologists liars, and I'm using Bible apologetics, why should we continue to discuss any of these issues?

You may have the last word on this discussion.

 

[BilliardsBall]

You can't claim or act as though the supernatural exists without any evidence.

That was my point there.

Yes, you are correct, except that evidence exists and you will return to "I don't believe [the given evidence]."

 

[BilliardsBall]

I don't think this addresses my point about your beliefs and assertions at all.

Of course I understand that self-defense is a moral right. But I'm not the one claiming absolute morality that comes from the Bible/God in the form of commandments. That would be you.

You say morality is absolute, and then demonstrate that it isn't.
You say slavery is immoral for some, but not for others. Sorry to tell you, but that's moral relativism.


This brings up another question in my mind .. What is morality about, in your opinion? You take issue with my saying that morality is about the well-being of sentient creatures/human beings. Because I don't see what else it could possibly be about.
You assert that morality comes from the Bible/God, which I don't really think answers the question. So what is God's goal or purpose, with respect to these moral pronouncements? Does God care about the well-being of sentient creatures?

We can start with a basic pronouncement of Bible code: "Love your neighbor as yourself . . . treat people the way you yourself with to be treated." If that doesn't answer your inquiry, what possibly could?

 

[SkepticThinker]

We can start with a basic pronouncement of Bible code: "Love your neighbor as yourself . . . treat people the way you yourself with to be treated." If that doesn't answer your inquiry, what possibly could?

I'd rather start with a response to my question and my point.

You have now argued from the point of view of moral relativism. If you say, "Slavery of an Israelite is absolutely immoral (Bible law), and slavery of a Gentile is moral (Bible law)" you're saying that slavery is moral for some cultures and societies, but not for others. Is that not the definition of moral relativism? The very moral relativism you wanted to accuse me of using? Uh oh.


This post opens a whole other can of worms. Should I treat my enemy as I want to be treated? What if my enemy wants to kill me? That's not a very practical command, in such a case, is it?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yes, you are correct, except that evidence exists and you will return to "I don't believe [the given evidence]."

Instead of trying to predict what I'll say, why not just present evidence for the supernatural? You might even win a Nobel Prize, because you'd be the first in history to do so.

I am a person who is convinced by demonstrable evidence. Whatever that may be.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is the case that nomadic people in tents who took everything with them to build a new nation should have left behind . . . what, exactly? Even their worship center was mobile, a tent with chapters of Bible instruction referring to its travel--for a people who lived in 42 places over 40 years. The Israelites were never supposed to LIVE or establish in the Sinai but in CAANAN. They were told in the Bible to take everything, their tools, their plundering of Egypt, there cattle--to build a theocratic nation elsewhere, for which there is IMMENSE archaeology in modern Israel.

And you immediately disqualify yourself as having any training in archaeology by this question. You should have been able to answer your own question. And if you do not know the people to ask would be archaeologists, not a total lay person such as myself. But just for fun since according to the myth there were on the order of at least 1.5 million people they would leave behind at least one thing, poop. Lots and lots of poop. Both human and animal since you said that they took their wee beasties with them. There would also be bodies, in any large population people die. As would some of their animals. I am sure that there would be other signs, but those two are enough.

And as always, you ignore my lines of logic, for example, I just explained how desert items are covered over--in the Negev and Sinai, for example, it's a not infrequent occurrence to find an entire tank under sand from modern wartime. And you expect that archaeologists can cover thousands of square miles adequately--when the routes of the Exodus are debated, when the sands have shifted for millennia, when an archaeologist can dig 50 feet from an Exodus finding and not know it. Watch The Dig on Netflix to understand how Sutton Hoo was found a few yards from where fruitless digs were undertaken...

Grasping at straws and using poor arguments is not "logic". If you want a serious response please do not abuse terminology.

The issue between us isn't logic--it's your giant tu quoque fallacy. I say devout evolutionists, for example, are misinformed, I don't call them all "liars for Darwin". And since you call ALL apologists liars, and I'm using Bible apologetics, why should we continue to discuss any of these issues?

You may have the last word on this discussion.

Again, do not attempt to use logical fallacies if you want a serious response. You are merely accusing others of your own sins.. And try to be accurate, I have claimed that no online apologist source eventually has shown that they are just Liars for Jesus. If you want to use an apologist as a source you must first demonstrate that they are reliable There is no peer review for apologetics, no standards. And that may be why everyone that I have ever seen eventually relies upon lying.

I am not saying that you cannot use them as ideas for claims. You might do that, but if you refer to them the claim has no weight. If anything it is a self refutation. Find the supposed sources that they used and use that as a basis.

 

[SkepticThinker]

What the heck is a "devout evolutionist"???

 

[night912]

We can start with a basic pronouncement of Bible code: "Love your neighbor as yourself . . . treat people the way you yourself with to be treated." If that doesn't answer your inquiry, what possibly could?

So since I don't want to be own as property, I shouldn't own another human being as property therefore, slavery being done to any human being is immoral.

If your God didn't want the Israelites to be slaves and they themselves didn't want to be slaves, then why did your God tell the Israelites that it's morally right to own slaves? Why would your God tell them that it's okay to treat the other "kind" of people that are different from yours the way you want to treat them, even if you yourself don't want to be treated that way?

This is why you didn't answer the inquiry and actually, dug yourself into a deeper hole.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So since I don't want to be own as property, I shouldn't own another human being as property therefore, slavery being done to any human being is immoral.

If your God didn't want the Israelites to be slaves and they themselves didn't want to be slaves, then why did your God tell the Israelites that it's morally right to own slaves? Why would your God tell them that it's okay to treat the other "kind" of people that are different from yours the way you want to treat them, even if you yourself don't want to be treated that way?

This is why you didn't answer the inquiry and actually, dug yourself into a deeper hole.

Hmm. . . I am not so sure. @BilliardsBall appears to have a good point. In fact I am looking into acquiring my own female sex slave right now (non-Hebrew of course, we want to keep this legit and moral).

 

[night912]

Hmm. . . I am not so sure. @BilliardsBall appears to have a good point. In fact I am looking into acquiring my own female sex slave right now (non-Hebrew of course, we want to keep this legit and moral).

In that case, make sure that she's a virgin.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I'd rather start with a response to my question and my point.

You have now argued from the point of view of moral relativism. If you say, "Slavery of an Israelite is absolutely immoral (Bible law), and slavery of a Gentile is moral (Bible law)" you're saying that slavery is moral for some cultures and societies, but not for others. Is that not the definition of moral relativism? The very moral relativism you wanted to accuse me of using? Uh oh.


This post opens a whole other can of worms. Should I treat my enemy as I want to be treated? What if my enemy wants to kill me? That's not a very practical command, in such a case, is it?

Here's my response:

When I hear people say "The Bible says don't kill," I correct them, capital punishment for capital crimes aka killing is moral. Murder is a killing that is immoral.

If you agree that there are differences between murder and self-defense killing in moral terms, you'd agree that you are being overly reductionist regarding slavery. For example, is indentured servitude moral if slavery isn't (to you)? There are many ways in which as the Bible says, "the borrower is the servant of the lender". Debtors can go to prison even in modern times, depending.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Instead of trying to predict what I'll say, why not just present evidence for the supernatural? You might even win a Nobel Prize, because you'd be the first in history to do so.

I am a person who is convinced by demonstrable evidence. Whatever that may be.

You are both qualifying what is evidence using a fallacious appeal to authority, in this case, the Nobel committee, and ignoring the many areas in science where science lacks explanatory power.

 

[BilliardsBall]

So since I don't want to be own as property, I shouldn't own another human being as property therefore, slavery being done to any human being is immoral.

If your God didn't want the Israelites to be slaves and they themselves didn't want to be slaves, then why did your God tell the Israelites that it's morally right to own slaves? Why would your God tell them that it's okay to treat the other "kind" of people that are different from yours the way you want to treat them, even if you yourself don't want to be treated that way?

This is why you didn't answer the inquiry and actually, dug yourself into a deeper hole.

I'm unsure if you're being rhetorical or asking a legitimate question, since I've repeatedly explained how slavery for the Israelites (limited, indentured servitude, humane, economic exchange) was moral.

 

[night912]

I'm unsure if you're being rhetorical or asking a legitimate question, since I've repeatedly explained how slavery for the Israelites (limited, indentured servitude, humane, economic exchange) was moral.

So, "love thy neighbor" no longer applies and is thrown out. Got it.

 

[night912]

I'm unsure if you're being rhetorical or asking a legitimate question, since I've repeatedly explained how slavery for the Israelites (limited, indentured servitude, humane, economic exchange) was moral.

But it's also moral to own an Israelite slave without that is not limited and because of economic exchange. And I'm not saying this just because I'm correct, it's actually your God that commands it.

Deuteronomy 15
12 And if thy brother, an Hebrew man, or an Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, and serve thee six years; then in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free from thee.

13 And when thou sendest him out free from thee, thou shalt not let him go away empty:

14 Thou shalt furnish him liberally out of thy flock, and out of thy floor, and out of thy winepress: of that wherewith the Lord thy God hath blessed thee thou shalt give unto him.

15 And thou shalt remember that thou wast a bondman in the land of Egypt, and the Lord thy God redeemed thee: therefore I command thee this thing to day.

16 And it shall be, if he say unto thee, I will not go away from thee; because he loveth thee and thine house, because he is well with thee;

17 Then thou shalt take an aul, and thrust it through his ear unto the door, and he shall be thy servant for ever. And also unto thy maidservant thou shalt do likewise.


So it can be moral to own an Israelite woman slave forever. And sometimes own an Israelite man forever as well, therefore, it's not limited. And it's not for economic exchange, but because of his love for his wife.

Context is important. Depending on the context, it is morally right to own an Israelite slave and a Gentile slave. Your God just proved that I'm right and you're wrong about biblical morality, it's not absolute. So are you ready to be someone's slave for life yet?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Here's my response:

When I hear people say "The Bible says don't kill," I correct them, capital punishment for capital crimes aka killing is moral. Murder is a killing that is immoral.

If you agree that there are differences between murder and self-defense killing in moral terms, you'd agree that you are being overly reductionist regarding slavery. For example, is indentured servitude moral if slavery isn't (to you)? There are many ways in which as the Bible says, "the borrower is the servant of the lender". Debtors can go to prison even in modern times, depending.

No, I wouldn't agree to that and when we're talking about slavery, we're not talking about degrees such as murder versus self-defense. We're s talking about the act of owning human beings as property. Indentured servitude is something different from the outright owning of human beings as property, though still immoral in its own way. Also, going to prison for owing debt is not "the owning of human beings as property" though it can still be immoral in its own way.

I'm not a moral relativist so I don't think something can be immoral for one culture but perfectly moral for another. If you claim you're not a moral relativist, then I have no idea why you are arguing in favour of it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You are both qualifying what is evidence using a fallacious appeal to authority, in this case, the Nobel committee, and ignoring the many areas in science where science lacks explanatory power.

I haven't appealed to any authority whatsoever. I pointed out that nobody has ever produced good evidence for the existence of the supernatural, and pointing out that such a finding would be worthy of a Nobel Prize, because it could be worldview-altering. That's not an appeal to any authority. And it's not fallacious to ask someone for the reasons/evidence they use to determine that something exists; It's just logic 101.

I asked you for evidence for your claims that supernatural anything exists. And now you're tap dancing.

 

[night912]

If you agree that there are differences between murder and self-defense killing in moral terms, you'd agree that you are being overly reductionist regarding slavery. For example, is indentured servitude moral if slavery isn't (to you)? There are many ways in which as the Bible says, "the borrower is the servant of the lender". Debtors can go to prison even in modern times, depending.

According to you, a self defense killing done to an Israelite and Gentile is moral but it's immoral to murder an Israelite and Gentile. So how is that the same thing as slavery? According to you, slavery is moral when it's being done to Gentiles but immoral if it's Israelites.

Like I said, morality is about the "act." Self defense killing is one act done to two different kinds of people with equal results, it's moral. Murder is one act done to two different kinds of people with equal results, it's immoral. And your reasoning for slavery is one act done to two kinds of people with different results, moral when doing it to one kind and immoral when doing it to a different kind.

How deep are you planning to dig up that hole of yours?