Behold, atheists' new Ten Commandments

[jordanriver]

Funny you mention "distinction." The line between moral laws and those laws that distinguished the Jews from the Canaanites was blurry. If the Jews didn't try hard to be distinct, then moral collapse--killing babies for Baal, for example--wouldn't be that far behind. That seems to be a pretty explicit warning in the OT.

you're really into this Baal thing now.
too bad the old TWEB broke down, I had a lot of refs from my books in a thread "How Do You Justify the Atrocities of Canaan" ....it was an answer to a thread "How do you Justify the Atrocities of God"

I am typing some of the pages , and plan to start a thread in the World History section when I get them all done.

pretty gruesome stuff.

[Darth Executor]

Or ... maybe ... female sexuality was a completely disregarded topic in a patriarchal society. Female pleasure??? Who cares.

1. What does pleasure have to do with this?
2. Doesn't look like it was disregarded in the Song of Songs.

[whag]

Homosexuality = male homosexuality. The side-effect of lesbianism is the opposite, they stop caring about sex or attracting a partner so they get fat and die of a heart attack (and you foot the bill in a liberal society). That's less of a threat to an ancient society than male homosexuality though, which is probably why the bible is much harsher on male homosexuality while barely mentioning the female kind.

So lesbianism is okay, then. There's no actual reason why it's forbidden.

[whag]

1. What does pleasure have to do with this?
2. Doesn't look like it was disregarded in the Song of Songs.

You answered your own question by referencing a book attributed to a king who had sex with multiple women. Nice.

[One Bad Pig]

A claim of moral absolutism is simply that certain things are just intrinsically wrong. There's no specific type of justification required. Some people believe that moral right and wrongs are inherent traits. Others place the justification in a deity. Even if it ultimately comes down to "because I think it's wrong" (and it generally does), that doesn't stop it from being a moral absolute.

It takes an incredible amount of chutzpah to declare that because I think something's wrong, then it's absolutely wrong. In my opinion, your argument is circular; because you have no justification, then you argue that no justification is required.

I'm not sure I'm understanding your last sentence. A group of people doesn't somehow have greater weight when it comes to such claims. Moreover, it kind of sounds like you're trying to group by religious persuasion and ignoring the other factors that come into play. Atheists aren't magically immune to cultural influences, after all.

Yeah, you're not understanding my sentence. An absolute is pretty much be definition universal. I've already said that societies can't create moral absolutes - because societies are not universal, and are subject to potential change. A moral absolute is not subject to change.

[Darth Executor]

So lesbianism is okay, then. There's no actual reason why it's forbidden.

No, it's mentioned once.

You answered your own question by referencing a book attributed to a king who had sex with multiple women. Nice.

Chicks like the guy who's popular with the ladies. Seems to me like you're the one uninterested in female sexual pleasure since you think they're the same as men and like the same things you like in equal capacity.

[whag]

No, it's mentioned once.

What does that mean?

Chicks like the guy who's popular with the ladies.

Okay.

Seems to me like you're the one uninterested in female sexual pleasure since you think they're the same as men and like the same things you like in equal capacity.

Not sure where you got that. Thanks for bringing up promiscuous Solomon, though. ;)

[lilpixieofterror]

Not sure where you got that. Thanks for bringing up promiscuous Solomon, though. ;)

Look at the goal post run.

[Darth Executor]

What does that mean?

It means it's still forbidden. I already gave the reasons as to why it's harmful.

Not sure where you got that. Thanks for bringing up promiscuous Solomon, though. ;)

It was his downfall after all. I just brought it up because of a dumb comment about how "patriarchy" doesn't care about female pleasure.

[whag]

It means it's still forbidden. I already gave the reasons as to why it's harmful.

Yes, they have too many heart attacks was your reason.

It was his downfall after all.

What was? Having wives and concubines? His dad had sex with lots of women, too.

I just brought it up because of a dumb comment about how "patriarchy" doesn't care about female pleasure.

You brought up whacky moral relativism in the bible. Good going.

[Carrikature]

It takes an incredible amount of chutzpah to declare that because I think something's wrong, then it's absolutely wrong. In my opinion, your argument is circular; because you have no justification, then you argue that no justification is required.

That isn't my argument. It would be pretty stupid to say that the reason no justification is required is because one doesn't have any justification. That doesn't even make sense. However, it's not uncommon for people to have beliefs without justification. The lack of a justification doesn't preclude the belief.

Furthermore, I think you're off base to claim that anyone says a thing is absolutely wrong just because they think it's wrong. They're not attempting to declare a thing absolutely wrong just on their say so. Rather, they're stating that they believe certain things to be absolutely wrong.

Yeah, you're not understanding my sentence. An absolute is pretty much be definition universal. I've already said that societies can't create moral absolutes - because societies are not universal, and are subject to potential change. A moral absolute is not subject to change.

Moral absolutes aren't created. It makes no difference if societies are universal and/or subject to change because they couldn't create a moral absolute anyway. Moral absolutes, if they exist at all, can be recognized by an individual or by a society. One doesn't have to understand why they believe something to be a moral absolute to recognize that they believe it to be so.