Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Richard Dawkins stripped of 1996 Humanist of the Year Award...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Tassman View Post

    There’s no “tacit admission” by Christians of humans behaving badly except in retrospect based upon evolved social values.
    Yup. Humans acting like other humans.


    Is there any particular reason that you avoided answering my simple question?

    Btw, do yo agree or disagree that Dawkins ought to have been stripped of an award he got a quarter of a century ago?


    Care to take a shot at it?

    I'm always still in trouble again

    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Tassman View Post

      No. What I’m telling you is that morals and ethics evolve and vary from culture to culture over time. There is NO single absolute morality.
      That is a fallacy. There logically could be universal moral truths even if men did not follow them.

      People of faith have a long history of reading the bible so that virtually any perspective on changing social issues – from the denigration of women to slave-ownership - will find some and justification e.g., slavery was justified in Colossians 3:22, (and elsewhere): “Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor…”. But slavery is not justified by Christians nowadays and accordingly the bible is interpreted differently.
      This does not make sense. Slavery was a universal institution, scripture doesn't make a moral claim about it (good or bad). Second, according to the NT slave owners were not to treat their slaves harshly or badly (unlike slavery practiced in the West). Finally, it was Christian abolitionists who lead the way in ending slavery. They were not following social mores they were the ones changing it.
      Last edited by seer; 05-04-2021, 07:31 AM.
      Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

      Comment


      • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
        Yup. Humans acting like other humans.
        Indeed. Humans acting in response to ever evolving social values and adjusting their religious beliefs accordingly.
        “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by seer View Post

          That is a fallacy. There logically could be universal moral truths even if men did not follow them.
          No. The origin of morality is biology and natural selection and it has demonstrably evolved and varied from culture to culture over time.

          This does not make sense. Slavery was a universal institution, scripture doesn't make a moral claim about it (good or bad).
          Slavery was universally practiced for millennia and accepted in the OT and NT – e.g., Colossians 3:22 – but not today. See above re evolving morality.

          Finally, it was Christian abolitionists who lead the way in ending slavery. They were not following social mores they were the ones changing it.
          Christians owned slaves for many centuries. They also participated in the general movement for the abolition of slavery and other violations of fundamental rights associated with slavery (such as racial discrimination) as per changing social values in the West. Although less so in areas dominated by the Southern Baptist Convention and the Dutch Reform Church of South Africa.

          “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Tassman View Post

            No. The origin of morality is biology and natural selection and it has demonstrably evolved and varied from culture to culture over time.
            Another fallacy, it doesn't follow that because our moral sense developed over time that therefore universal moral truths don't exist.


            Slavery was universally practiced for millennia and accepted in the OT and NT – e.g., Colossians 3:22 – but not today. See above re evolving morality.
            So what is your point?

            Christians owned slaves for many centuries. They also participated in the general movement for the abolition of slavery and other violations of fundamental rights associated with slavery (such as racial discrimination) as per changing social values in the West. Although less so in areas dominated by the Southern Baptist Convention and the Dutch Reform Church of South Africa.
            Again, not the point. You suggested that Christians generally just go along with the social mores of the day. That is false, is was Christian abolitionists that pushed against the common social views of the day.
            Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Tassman View Post

              Indeed. Humans acting in response to ever evolving social values and adjusting their religious beliefs accordingly.
              What beliefs have I adjusted?
              Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Tassman View Post

                Indeed. Humans acting in response to ever evolving social values and adjusting their religious beliefs accordingly.
                You mean forcibly converting when they were told not to? Brutally enslaving whole populations in direct contradiction to how we were told to treat our fellow man?

                So are you saying that we got much, much worse before we woke up and started taking Christ's message (at least wrt these things) to heart?

                I'm always still in trouble again

                "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                Comment


                • Originally posted by seer View Post

                  Another fallacy, it doesn't follow that because our moral sense developed over time that therefore universal moral truths don't exist.
                  There is no good reason to imagine that universal moral truths exist. The origin of morality is biology and natural selection, not alleged divine revelation. .

                  So what is your point?
                  The point is that Christian slave owners readily justified centuries of human bondage via scripture and this was acceptable to the society of the day – and throughout most of human history.

                  Again, not the point. You suggested that Christians generally just go along with the social mores of the day. That is false, is was Christian abolitionists that pushed against the common social views of the day.
                  Christians didn't have to "go along with anything. They were the basis of the “social mores of the day”, given that virtually everyone was nominally Christian. And this included the abolitionists who represented the evolving values of society.




                  “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                    You mean forcibly converting when they were told not to? Brutally enslaving whole populations in direct contradiction to how we were told to treat our fellow man?

                    So are you saying that we got much, much worse before we woke up and started taking Christ's message (at least wrt these things) to heart?
                    Are YOU saying that countless generations of Christians deliberately and wantonly acted against biblical injunctions before they finally got things, right? How do Christians know they have got it “right” now – given they had it wrong for so many centuries?
                    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by seer View Post
                      The problem is that you are using a fallacy. Argumentum ad Populum. That because the majority say A is wrong, A must be objectively wrong.
                      That is misconstruing that specific logical fallacy. The Argumentum ad Populum [appeal to the people] is often premised on emotional appeals rather than logical reasoning and the fallacy contends that because something is popular [with the people] it follows that it must be true.

                      Originally posted by seer View Post
                      Give me one text that would support spousal rape? You can't, and you know how Paul taught husbands and wives to treat each other.
                      Paul's comments on sex are interesting. His ideal was a perpetual state of virginity. With regard to marriage his views were decidedly negative and he argued that marriage made both partners slaves to each other's sexual needs leaving them no longer free to devote their energies to "the Lord". He even appears to take a passage from Genesis literally (see I Corinthians 6: 15-17) where he likens marriage to an encounter with a prostitute.

                      We also know from his writings that he was very against any form of passion [including in the bedroom]. In I Corinthians 7.3 he writes that that each husband and wife shall give each other their όφειλήν (debt/duty). There is no mention of sexual enjoyment or passion. What he intended by that word can be debated and one interpretation could possibly tie his ideas to the Stoics view of passionless sex.

                      However, his language is a far cry from the Song of Songs where two young people are desperate to get their hands on one another's bodies.

                      "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful" Attrib. Seneca 4 BCE - 65 CE

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                        That is misconstruing that specific logical fallacy. The Argumentum ad Populum [appeal to the people] is often premised on emotional appeals rather than logical reasoning and the fallacy contends that because something is popular [with the people] it follows that it must be true.
                        I have read a number of definitions, there is no evidence that Argumentum ad Populum is necessarily reduced to mere emotional appeals. Though they can be. And I'm not sure what you mean by logical reasoning. The Maoists had logical reasons for murdering millions of their country men for the sake of social cohesion. So Hypatia, why is murder objectively wrong? That was the discussion between me and Star after all.

                        Paul's comments on sex are interesting. His ideal was a perpetual state of virginity. With regard to marriage his views were decidedly negative and he argued that marriage made both partners slaves to each other's sexual needs leaving them no longer free to devote their energies to "the Lord". He even appears to take a passage from Genesis literally (see I Corinthians 6: 15-17) where he likens marriage to an encounter with a prostitute.
                        One of the most stupid things you have ever said! That is not what that passage is teaching at all, he is speaking of sexual immorality in context, not marriage!


                        We also know from his writings that he was very against any form of passion [including in the bedroom]. In I Corinthians 7.3 he writes that that each husband and wife shall give each other their όφειλήν (debt/duty). There is no mention of sexual enjoyment or passion. What he intended by that word can be debated and one interpretation could possibly tie his ideas to the Stoics view of passionless sex.
                        Where the hell do you get the idea that he was speaking of passionless sex? Do you just make stuff up?
                        Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Tassman View Post

                          Are YOU saying that countless generations of Christians deliberately and wantonly acted against biblical injunctions before they finally got things, right? How do Christians know they have got it “right” now – given they had it wrong for so many centuries?
                          Many knew back then that the behavior was wrong and spoke out against it, and as seer has already informed you, it was mostly Christians who were responsible for finally being able to bring an end to slavery in the West (it is still relatively common in a number of areas where Islam is influential). So, yes, it did take a long time to get the majority to listen.

                          Humans have always done pretty much what they want and find ways to rationalize it later. It is our way. Much like small children who still touch the hot item even after being told several times not to, we had to grow and learn. And even now we still engage in behavior that future societies will look back at with disgust just like we do slavery today. Such as the butchering of unwanted babies that those on the left (including liberal Christians) declare is their "right" to do. WHO estimates that 125,000 unborn babies are slaughtered each and every day. 125,000/day. Something tells me our society will be, rightfully so, judged very harshly for permitting this.

                          I'm always still in trouble again

                          "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                          "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by seer View Post

                            I have read a number of definitions, there is no evidence that Argumentum ad Populum is necessarily reduced to mere emotional appeals. Though they can be. And I'm not sure what you mean by logical reasoning. The Maoists had logical reasons for murdering millions of their country men for the sake of social cohesion. So Hypatia, why is murder objectively wrong? That was the discussion between me and Star after all.
                            Are you defining murder purely in its legal sense? If so, you have your answer.


                            Originally posted by seer View Post
                            One of the most stupid things you have ever said! That is not what that passage is teaching at all, he is speaking of sexual immorality in context, not marriage!
                            Go back to the Greek texts.

                            Originally posted by seer View Post
                            Where the hell do you get the idea that he was speaking of passionless sex? Do you just make stuff up?
                            Read I Thessalonians 4.3-5 and the way Paul writes about the way a wife should be possessed. Verse 5 has a distinct hint of sex without passion μή ‘εν πάθει ‘εριθυμίας ["not with lustful passion"]

                            "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful" Attrib. Seneca 4 BCE - 65 CE

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                              Are you defining murder purely in its legal sense? If so, you have your answer.
                              What are you not getting? The discussion with Star was about objective moral truths. Or universal moral truths - whether they exist or not. I suspect that you are a moral relativist - correct?


                              Go back to the Greek texts.
                              No you are just being dishonest!

                              Sexual Immorality

                              12 “I have the right to do anything,” you say—but not everything is beneficial. “I have the right to do anything”—but I will not be mastered by anything. 13 You say, “Food for the stomach and the stomach for food, and God will destroy them both.” The body, however, is not meant for sexual immorality but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. 14 By his power God raised the Lord from the dead, and he will raise us also. 15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never! 16 Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.”[b]17 But whoever is united with the Lord is one with him in spirit.[c]
                              Read I Thessalonians 4.3-5 and the way Paul writes about the way a wife should be possessed. Verse 5 has a distinct hint of sex without passion μή ‘εν πάθει ‘εριθυμίας ["not with lustful passion"]
                              Again, Paul is not speaking of sexual relations between a husband and wife! The lustful passion is in context of sexual immorality (Greek porneia). And porneia is never used for sex between a husband and wife. If you think otherwise show it.
                              Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by seer View Post

                                What are you not getting? The discussion with Star was about objective moral truths. Or universal moral truths - whether they exist or not. I suspect that you are a moral relativist - correct?
                                If you are discussing murder under its legal definition the answer is already there.


                                Originally posted by seer View Post

                                No you are just being dishonest!
                                Do you not know Paul wrote in Greek?



                                Originally posted by seer View Post

                                Again, Paul is not speaking of sexual relations between a husband and wife! The lustful passion is in context of sexual immorality (Greek porneia). And porneia is never used for sex between a husband and wife. If you think otherwise show it.
                                I am not discussing πορνεία.

                                The words I quoted from the Greek are πάθει [passion] and ‘εριθυμίας [desire/lust]. In those verses Paul condemns passion and desire/lust in sex, even in the context of marriage. In that regard Paul echoes the ideas of various ancient moralists who advocated sex without passion. Hence his dour comment in I Corinthians 7.3 that the husband and wife give one another their "όφειλήν [debt/duty].

                                Last edited by Hypatia_Alexandria; 05-06-2021, 08:40 AM.
                                "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful" Attrib. Seneca 4 BCE - 65 CE

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by lee_merrill, 06-03-2021, 11:57 AM
                                1 response
                                38 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Christian3  
                                Started by Machinist, 05-26-2021, 10:52 AM
                                97 responses
                                522 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Stoic
                                by Stoic
                                 
                                Started by seer, 05-12-2021, 05:35 AM
                                545 responses
                                3,415 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post seer
                                by seer
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 05-09-2021, 09:43 AM
                                21 responses
                                189 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 05-09-2021, 09:34 AM
                                144 responses
                                1,079 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X