Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

HamletOrHecuba · 10-06-2012 11:50pm

PDN wrote: »

Nonsense. The holiest of men will sometimes come to different interpretations.

Because the holiest of men are still in this world infected by sin.

"Keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are... That they all may be one; as thou, Father, [art] in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me... And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare [it]: that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them." (John 17:11,21-23,26)

"An Icon of the Triadic God is the Holy Church, as she operates the very union among the faithful to God, albeit to those who happen to be of different speech and from different places and customs, according to which [union], by the faith, are made one." (Patrologia Graeca, vol. 91 “Mystagogy,” ch. i, p. 668

The growing differences between those who call themselves Christians in the last 1000 years is due obviously to the mystery of lawlessness.

philologos · 11-06-2012 6:55am

marienbad wrote: »

No you hav'nt philogos, why were christians defending slavery as recently as 200 years ago if morality is objective and unchanging ?

Indulge me by answering this specific question.

I have no argument on the great work done by Christians in the abolitionist movement , aided it must be said by economics. But that is for another thread - interesting though.

Selfishness and greed got in the way. Much as it does with other people.

This isn't proof of subjective morality. The widespread abuse and exploitation of other people is clearly against God's standard Biblically. Insofar as I can show that clearly, I can have confidence in God's word.

How was the abolitionist movement aided by economics? - The economical option would have been to keep them all there.

You've also made the mistake of confusing morality with what people think, again. The point I and others on this thread are trying to make is that morality is not dependent on human opinion, it is mind independent. Therefore, you're not even presenting a good argument against my position.

marienbad · 11-06-2012 1:44pm

philologos wrote: »

Selfishness and greed got in the way. Much as it does with other people.

This isn't proof of subjective morality. The widespread abuse and exploitation of other people is clearly against God's standard Biblically. Insofar as I can show that clearly, I can have confidence in God's word.

How was the abolitionist movement aided by economics? - The economical option would have been to keep them all there.

You've also made the mistake of confusing morality with what people think, again. The point I and others on this thread are trying to make is that morality is not dependent on human opinion, it is mind independent. Therefore, you're not even presenting a good argument against my position.

You are again making the mistake of thinking I am making that mistake, Again and for the last time, I am not. Furthermore -it makes no difference .

For argument sake let us say objective morality does exist - like some celestial majestic liner in the sky , ever orbiting the universe immutable and eternal - grand.

How do we as humans access that objective moral code ? Through Divine relevation , concience, and conferring with friends and colleagues. The result of that process is subjective as you can get.

Let us take a specific example and contrast and compare -the slave trade .

200 or so years ago most good christians came to the conclusion that slavery was acceptable . Some did not.

Today no christians thinks that slavery is acceptabe . That seems to illustrate that morality is a social construct gradually mutating to take into account new knowledge and beliefs . Subjective in fact , no evidence for objective morality involved at all.

You see it yourself but you can't recognise it or let yourself do so

philologos wrote: »

Selfishness and greed got in the way. Much as it does with other people.

In other words human interpretation ( sometines good, sometimes not) got in the way.

PDN · 11-06-2012 2:17pm

marienbad wrote: »

How do we as humans access that objective moral code ? Through Divine relevation , concience, and conferring with friends and colleagues. The result of that process is subjective as you can get.

No, it is very far from being as subjective as you can get. What we see are situations where the teachings expressed by Jesus (who is, for Christians, the ultimate revelation) have struggled with other views.

The fact that so-called Christians have sometimes chosen to prioritise other considerations over and above the teachings of Jesus is an indication that not everyone who claims to be a Christian truly follows the teachings of Christ. You would need to be willfully ignorant of both history and theology to claim that it somehow proves that the Christian view of morality are totally subjective.

Let us take a specific example and contrast and compare -the slave trade .

200 or so years ago most good christians came to the conclusion that slavery was acceptable . Some did not.

Yet again, Marien, I recommend you to try reading up on Church history. Until you do so, you're likely to keep coming out with these kind of howlers.

Throughout Christian history you find that the majority of those who have seriously pursued the teachings of Jesus as their main principle in life have opposed slavery. However, they have often been overruled by those who were in positions of wealth, power, governmental influence etc. (ie by those who found it convenient to call themselves 'Christians' in a nominally Christian society but who had every incentive to find a way to circumvent the teachings of Jesus).

For example, read up on the history of the conquistadors in Central and South America. You will find that the missionaries (such as the Jesuits) were appalled by slavery. In fact they managed to persuade the Pope to excommunicate anyone who enslaved native Americans. The conquistadors however (who wanted gold) used their influence at governmental level to get their kings to lean on the Pope and to reverse this edict.

Similarly, 200 years ago the abolitionists were primarily those, such as Quakers and Evangelicals, who were viewed as Bible-bashing fanatics by the worldy-wise who supported slavery.

To claim that most 'good Christians' 200 years ago supported slavery takes either extreme ignorance or deep dishonesty.

marienbad · 11-06-2012 2:45pm

PDN wrote: »

No, it is very far from being as subjective as you can get. What we see are situations where the teachings expressed by Jesus (who is, for Christians, the ultimate revelation) have struggled with other views.

The fact that so-called Christians have sometimes chosen to prioritise other considerations over and above the teachings of Jesus is an indication that not everyone who claims to be a Christian truly follows the teachings of Christ. You would need to be willfully ignorant of both history and theology to claim that it somehow proves that the Christian view of morality are totally subjective.

Yet again, Marien, I recommend you to try reading up on Church history. Until you do so, you're likely to keep coming out with these kind of howlers.

Throughout Christian history you find that the majority of those who have seriously pursued the teachings of Jesus as their main principle in life have opposed slavery. However, they have often been overruled by those who were in positions of wealth, power, governmental influence etc. (ie by those who found it convenient to call themselves 'Christians' in a nominally Christian society but who had every incentive to find a way to circumvent the teachings of Jesus).

For example, read up on the history of the conquistadors in Central and South America. You will find that the missionaries (such as the Jesuits) were appalled by slavery. In fact they managed to persuade the Pope to excommunicate anyone who enslaved native Americans. The conquistadors however (who wanted gold) used their influence at governmental level to get their kings to lean on the Pope and to reverse this edict.

Similarly, 200 years ago the abolitionists were primarily those, such as Quakers and Evangelicals, who were viewed as Bible-bashing fanatics by the worldy-wise who supported slavery.

To claim that most 'good Christians' 200 years ago supported slavery takes either extreme ignorance or deep dishonesty.

This dos'nt answer my point at all PDN

Anf yet again PDN might I request that you stop looking for an issues where there is none. I am well aware of the christian history in the opposition to and abolition of the slave trade and I have said so in one of my previous posts.

'' To claim that most 'good Christians' 200 years ago supported slavery takes either extreme ignorance or deep dishonesty.[/QUOTE''

It is neither PDN and I am not going down that road right now as it is not germane.

The point is that christians on a particular issue - slavery- came down on either side in significant numbers .

All your agument boils down to is that by an objective code of morality slavery is wrong and when I say what about all those christians that did'nt see it that way , you reply they did but for selfish reasons choose to ignore it.

PDN · 11-06-2012 3:15pm

marienbad wrote: »

This dos'nt answer my point at all PDN

Anf yet again PDN might I request that you stop looking for an issues where there is none. I am well aware of the christian history in the opposition to and abolition of the slave trade and I have said so in one of my previous posts..#

Unfortunately your saying so doesn't square with the erroneous statements you make.

The point is that christians on a particular issue - slavery- came down on either side in significant numbers .

But you can only make that point by being either:
a) Ignorant (which you insist you are not)
b) Dishonest - by pretending that the Christianity of someone who is genuinely trying to base their morality on the teachings of Jesus is a 'Christian' in the same sense as a Deist who is 'Christian' only in the sense that they were born in a Christian country.

marienbad · 11-06-2012 3:32pm

PDN wrote: »

Unfortunately your saying so doesn't square with the erroneous statements you make.

But you can only make that point by being either:
a) Ignorant (which you insist you are not)
b) Dishonest - by pretending that the Christianity of someone who is genuinely trying to base their morality on the teachings of Jesus is a 'Christian' in the same sense as a Deist who is 'Christian' only in the sense that they were born in a Christian country.

You are not answering the question I raised , just trying to cloud the issue.

I can only conclude from this reply that you are either ignorant or dishonest ( which I presume you are not) , therefore I must conclude you are only interested in derailing a great discussion . Which is a sure indicator that you are losing the argument.

PDN · 11-06-2012 5:15pm

marienbad wrote: »

You are not answering the question I raised , just trying to cloud the issue.

I can only conclude from this reply that you are either ignorant or dishonest ( which I presume you are not) , therefore I must conclude you are only interested in derailing a great discussion . Which is a sure indicator that you are losing the argument.

If you raise a genuine question then I will do my best to answer it (unlike some posters, I must add, who say they will answer in their own time and never do).

Maybe you could quote the question that you believe you asked and didn't get answered?

Morbert · 11-06-2012 7:01pm

philologos wrote: »

Selfishness and greed got in the way. Much as it does with other people.

This isn't proof of subjective morality. The widespread abuse and exploitation of other people is clearly against God's standard Biblically. Insofar as I can show that clearly, I can have confidence in God's word.

How was the abolitionist movement aided by economics? - The economical option would have been to keep them all there.

You've also made the mistake of confusing morality with what people think, again. The point I and others on this thread are trying to make is that morality is not dependent on human opinion, it is mind independent. Therefore, you're not even presenting a good argument against my position.

While I have not been following this exchange closely, you must see that this line of reasoning is a double-edged sword. Presenting opposing moral viewpoints does not refute the position that morality has an objective, mind-independent reality. But similarly, presenting similar moral viewpoints does not refute the position that morality is a human construct.

At best, what we can do is show how each position is consistent with a corresponding theistic/atheistic position.

philologos · 11-06-2012 7:48pm

marienbad wrote: »

You are again making the mistake of thinking I am making that mistake, Again and for the last time, I am not. Furthermore -it makes no difference .

For argument sake let us say objective morality does exist - like some celestial majestic liner in the sky , ever orbiting the universe immutable and eternal - grand.

How do we as humans access that objective moral code ? Through Divine relevation , concience, and conferring with friends and colleagues. The result of that process is subjective as you can get.

Let us take a specific example and contrast and compare -the slave trade .

200 or so years ago most good christians came to the conclusion that slavery was acceptable . Some did not.

Today no christians thinks that slavery is acceptabe . That seems to illustrate that morality is a social construct gradually mutating to take into account new knowledge and beliefs . Subjective in fact , no evidence for objective morality involved at all.

You see it yourself but you can't recognise it or let yourself do so

philologos wrote: »

Selfishness and greed got in the way. Much as it does with other people.

In other words human interpretation ( sometines good, sometimes not) got in the way.

Despite saying that you've not misunderstood my posts, you have again.

1) I've not claimed that the objective nature of morality stops people doing evil. The contrary is true. People are selfish and often do what is clearly immoral as a result. The Bible makes this clear insofar as people right from the beginning have turned their backs on God Almighty.

2) I've shown you why I believe in objective morality. It is through how the vast majority of moral disputes work. I don't agree that the result is as subjective as we can get. For the most part, humans agree as to what is good and what is evil, and for the most part the human conscience works on an objective framework of ethics.

3) Human "interpretation" has nothing to do with why people do evil. People do evil irrespective.

4) I've explained to you how subjective morality as a concept is unrealistic in so far as people when they are wronged don't say "Ah sure, maybe they thought it was good". People point out that they have been objectively wronged, they don't believe that morality is dependent on opinion. They cry out for justice. The same applies to nations actually.

5) God has revealed Himself in many ways, as has been pointed out already. His word and His continued revelation to us through it, through our consciences in that they appeal to an objective moral framework, and through those around us, insofar as we can see God's standards time and time again in their lives and in ethical disputes.

6) It matters little as to whether or not people justified their evil when we have God's word that such chronic abuse is immoral and unjustified and indeed Paul's commands to slavemasters in Rome make that clear, as does God's commandments to the Israelites towards sojourners in their nation.

It makes plenty of difference that despite I've explained my position very clearly to you that you continue to misunderstand it.

Fanny Cradock · 11-06-2012 8:01pm

There comes a point when it better to walk away, no? I've come to the conclusion that unless it is a really fascinating conversation between individuals who are actually interested in what the other person is saying, after about 10 responses it becomes something more like this -

No one is reading and the other person isn't listening.

Delirium · 11-06-2012 9:01pm

Right, I want to throw out some questions that have flitted through my mind as I'm going through some reading/video material (cheers for those, Fanny:))

One of them is that why is it that objective morality doesn't work without God? Some of the material I've gone through already says that for objective morality to work, there must be an ultimate authority.

A problem that arises in my thinking, as a non-Christian, is that if a person receives absolution through genuine confession there is not justice for anyone who he/she has wronged.

Another side to that is that behaving morally isn't worth it if there is no cosmic significance, e.g. God not existing. The victim of any crime would clearly disagree with that. Why isn't behaving morally enough in and of itself?

Where does sin sit with regards to morality? The following are based on presumptions I have about Christianity in general, so apologies in advance for potential stupidity in the line of questioning. Sin is a immoral act against divine law, and Christianity teaches we're born into sin. Does that not mean we're by default immoral beings and are fighting against our inherent nature by attempting to be moral? and to add to that, is not then immoral to not accept Christ as saviour because it is contrary to Gods will?

hopefully there isn't too much reason for eyerolling/facepalming or retreading of old ground in my post.

marienbad · 11-06-2012 10:28pm

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

There comes a point when it better to walk away, no? I've come to the conclusion that unless it is a really fascinating conversation between individuals who are actually interested in what the other person is saying, after about 10 responses it becomes something more like this -

No one is reading and the other person isn't listening.

That cuts both ways Fanny, so I will make one last effort.

-Is slavery ( to make it clearer, slavery we we saw in the 17th -19th centuries) against an objective moral code ? yes or no
- no then why not
- if yes, then why were substantial numbers of christians not only not opposed to it, but actively engaged in it ?

Will someone answer those questions in a straightforward manner with no if ands or buts, and let the chip fall where they may there after.

marienbad · 11-06-2012 10:34pm

PDN wrote: »

If you raise a genuine question then I will do my best to answer it (unlike some posters, I must add, who say they will answer in their own time and never do).

Maybe you could quote the question that you believe you asked and didn't get answered?

You may take it all my questions are genuine PDN , and I have asked that question on slavery yet again.

To philogos I Hav'nt misunderstood your posts., I just dont agree with them as I have made clear in many post at this stage and the same applies to your recap post above . I have answered all those points already so no use can come of doing it again.

In a nutshell that post proves to you why objective morality exists and not why objective morality per se exists.

But I have asked for straight answers on the slavery issue as a concrete example of how morality works - by a constantly mutating manner dictated by society philosophy culture etc or is eternal and unchanging.

Why don't we see how that goes and stop talking acroos each other ?

philologos · 11-06-2012 10:51pm

We've answered you numerous times. I agree with Fanny Craddock, there's no point in repeating ourselves on this issue.

lmaopml · 11-06-2012 11:13pm

The term 'Slavery' can be flung about a lot Marien, and it doesn't always mean the same thing to everybody in all times and places. I think that is important to understand firstly. It's objectively wrong to treat somebody as you wouldn't like to be treated yourself regardless, to be cruel etc - in other words to treat them unfairly with full knowledge, wherever this happens it is 'wrong' - it's not a little bit wrong, it's just wrong.

Why is it wrong?

Says who?

Says God - nobody else has the authority to say it's wrong - that's why it's an objective moral precept - the concept of being 'fair', not for the sake of others returning 'fairness' to you - but that's it's 'good' to be fair and 'bad' to be unfair in how we treat others.

However, slavery still exists today - for instance those who owe banks tons of money work to pay their debt, or come to some mutual understanding about how to go about doing that and have an agreement a contract. This kind of contract existed too and always has throughout history, and although it's termed 'Slavery' at one time, it was not quite the same thing in all occasions - unless an injustice has taken place, and that's the crux. It's when you've treated somebody unfairly that it becomes objectively wrong, on the wrong side of divine law.

Christians are people too, not always doing what they ought to do and many times trying to 'justify' a decision to do harm. You see it happening among nations today where greed plays a role in politics, it's nothing new. Many tried to justify colonisation for instance by believing they were bringing civility to savages, so they made other people 'less' in order to justify doing harm, they justified it by thinking it was for the greater good, but divine law doesn't do evil in order to bring about good. This happens all over the world - that's what we're saying basically I suppose, that 'good' and 'evil' actions do in fact exist. That there is a higher moral standard for humans by virtue of their 'understanding' that they ought not do harm and be selfish.

A Christian is not immune no more than an atheist is to do harm - but that's besides the point really. That's got nothing to do with objective standards that Christians believe is common to all people by virtue of being made in God's image, with a will, knowledge and of course understanding.

Edit: Ooops, I didn't mean to overshoot guys. Sorry - I just dived right in

marienbad · 11-06-2012 11:17pm

philologos wrote: »

We've answered you numerous times. I agree with Fanny Craddock, there's no point in repeating ourselves on this issue.

So do I take it you will not answer my specific questions on 17th-19th slavery ?

philologos · 11-06-2012 11:21pm

We've answered them already on multiple occasions. I can show you where people have responded to your post some even multiple times. I've no interest in repeating my position multiple times. If you want it go back and give it a read.

marienbad · 12-06-2012 12:10am

philologos wrote: »

We've answered them already on multiple occasions. I can show you where people have responded to your post some even multiple times. I've no interest in repeating my position multiple times. If you want it go back and give it a read.

Not at all Philogos , I am asking straight questions and getting no answer , in a lot of cases just waffle and obstruction. I can only conclude there is not enough faith in your own position to answer those questions and let the discussion go where it may.

So one last time - and yes or no will suffice for the 1st question, after all that is what an objective moral code is - right or wrong , there may be degrees of wrongness , but it is wrong all the same .

So yet again

Was slavery as practiced in the 17-19th century ( the triangular trade)
Against an objective moral code ? yes or no.

If it was why were christians in large numbers and over a lenghty period of time , not only opposed to abolition but actively engaged in and profiting from the practice ?

And to show where I am going , my next series of questions would relate to how so many people believing in the same set of beliefs can arrive at such different conclusions . This presuming that they all have access to the methodology outlined by PDN in post 4423 as to how that objective moral code is found.

boynesider · 12-06-2012 1:26am

The questions of morality and faith are ones which have been troubling me for some time, and there is some interesting debate on the preceding pages (although if you don't mind me saying, some of the expression is excessively convoluted;)).

Personally, I am entirely uncertain about my religious beliefs and as someone who would not reject the label of either atheist or Christian, I am under no illusions about what the implications of a purely materialistic world view would be. I have tried to approach this subject with as much honesty as possible, and I have had to conclude that without a belief in a higher power or a spiritual presence in the world there simply cannot be such a thing as good and evil.

This is something which I don't particularly want to believe as I find it hard to grasp any spirituality, but I am not in the habit fooling myself and therefore I have had to accept that in an atheistic world the fundamental concepts of right and wrong can simply not exist. If we are mere animals there can be no morality. I have often put this idea forward to friends who are avowed atheists and their responses have always been evasive or unconvincing, which suggests to me that this particular topic is one which atheists are uncomfortable with and which they are scared to confront.

The question must be asked, if religious belief were to completely disappear from humanity, would chaos not reign? If every single person were to accept that they were merely animals in a material world, cut loose from any prevailing moral system, would they not then revert back to the behavioral characteristics of an animal? (meaning the physically strong would dominate, and would subjugate and use all others to advance their own needs e.g Bye Bye gender equality!!!).

Because even though I am very uncertain about whether there is a higher power, I am honest enough to concede that human civilization as we know it today (which despite its flaws is a wonderful and extraordinary thing) has by and large been built upon religious belief, and that its continuation will also require the continuation of religious faith and adherence to what people perceive to be an objective morality.

These are the realities which the likes of Dawkins, Hitchens and other aggressive atheists have failed to consider as they are so caught up in their arrogant belief that they possess an ultimate knowledge which must be forced upon everybody. Do they not realise that as predominantly old, weak, grey-haired men, they simply would be bullied and abused, and may not even survive in their idealised world in which religion and its concomitants have been eradicated? It astonishes me that such clearly intelligent men can be so blind to the simple and inarguable truth, that the things which have allowed society to develop, such as the rule of law and the willingness to sacrifice individual needs in order to act for a collective, communal goal, are completely meaningless without the moral systems which religious belief has established. Do they suggest that we abandon spiritual beliefs yet maintain the attendant moral beliefs which has essentially given them so much? Too me this would be hypocritical and dishonest.

Fanny Cradock · 12-06-2012 2:01pm

marienbad wrote: »

That cuts both ways Fanny

And that was precisely my point marienbad.

marienbad · 12-06-2012 5:10pm

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

And that was precisely my point marienbad.

I assumed it was Fanny, now can you answer my specific question on slavery and lets see where it brings us ?

Fanny Cradock · 12-06-2012 7:17pm

marienbad wrote: »

I assumed it was Fanny, now can you answer my specific question on slavery and lets see where it brings us ?

What can I say that Philologos, PDN, lmaopml and others have not already said? With all due respect, marienbad, I'm not interested in discussing this with you.

marienbad · 12-06-2012 7:33pm

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

What can I say that Philologos, PDN, lmaopml and others have not already said? With all due respect, marienbad, I'm not interested in discussing this with you.

And with all due respect Fanny, I can only say when the tough questions get asked the response is fear, trepidation and ultimately silence.

Fanny Cradock · 12-06-2012 7:53pm

koth wrote: »

A problem that arises in my thinking, as a non-Christian, is that if a person receives absolution through genuine confession there is not justice for anyone who he/she has wronged.

Perhaps. But both Christianity and Judaism speak of a God who is passionate about justice, and both speak of a judgement day. And justice is good, right?

According to Christianity all have sinned and therefore all have fallen short of the mark. We are guilty. However, in Jesus we have a member of the Godhead who wept and bled for us and who still suffers with us in our pain. Despite missing the mark, and despite being as guilty as sin, we have been offered the undesired gift of salvation. I think that Philip Yancey wrote a good popular level book on the subject of grace.

I'm generally not one for poetry (I think Shakespeare's endless stream of sonnets in school killed it for me) but I quite like this one. The last verse says it all.

    Jesus of the Scars

    If we have never sought, we seek Thee now;
    Thine eyes burn through the dark, our only stars;
    We must have sight of thorn-pricks on Thy brow;
    We must have Thee, O Jesus of the Scars.

    The heavens frighten us; they are too calm;
    In all the universe we have no place.
    Our wounds are hurting us; where is the balm?
    Lord Jesus, by Thy Scars we claim Thy grace.

    If when the doors are shut, Thou drawest near,
    Only reveal those hands, that side of Thine;
    We know today what wounds are; have no fear;
    Show us Thy Scars; we know the countersign.

    The other gods were strong, but Thou wast weak;
    They rode, but Thou didst stumble to a throne;
    But to our wounds only God&#8217;s wounds can speak,
    And not a god has wounds, but Thou alone.

koth wrote: »

Another side to that is that behaving morally isn't worth it if there is no cosmic significance, e.g. God not existing. The victim of any crime would clearly disagree with that. Why isn't behaving morally enough in and of itself?

Well, part of the problem is that you would first have to define what is moral, and then get others to agree. How do you do that if you live in an amoral universe? What standard do you measure goodness against? Men like Sam Harris think that they have an answer. Underneath the impressive oration and the gross generalisations, I see nothing of substance and nothing that looks much like an answer. But don't take my word for it

(BTW, the talk I mentioned in my previous post to you provides an excellent critique)

koth wrote: »

Where does sin sit with regards to morality? The following are based on presumptions I have about Christianity in general, so apologies in advance for potential stupidity in the line of questioning. Sin is a immoral act against divine law, and Christianity teaches we're born into sin. Does that not mean we're by default immoral beings and are fighting against our inherent nature by attempting to be moral? and to add to that, is not then immoral to not accept Christ as saviour because it is contrary to Gods will?

This is where different theologies come in to play. My own thought is that we are very much in love with sin. And rather than being born sinful, I think it is a thing we do. It's a concious or subconscious decision to rebel against God.

Are we by default immoral? I don't know. What I do know is that we we can do good, we also cause so much evil in the world.

PDN · 12-06-2012 10:00pm

marienbad wrote: »

And with all due respect Fanny, I can only say when the tough questions get asked the response is fear, trepidation and ultimately silence.

That is rich given your track record.

I answered your question, but if you want it again, or phrased differently ....

Was slavery as practiced in the 17-19th century ( the triangular trade)
Against an objective moral code ? yes or no.

Yes.

if yes, then why were substantial numbers of christians not only not opposed to it, but actively engaged in it ?

a) Firstly, you are lumping together as 'Christians' virtually everybody who happened to be born into church-going families in Europe or North America. Obviously such a broad brush stroke is self-defeating when discussing a moral code, since it includes large numbers of people who haven't the faintest interest in basing their lives on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ.

b) Secondly, throughout Christian history, you find that those that spoke most about the teaching of Jesus as being a guide for morality were the same people who agitated against slavery. These people were often mocked by their opponents as being excessively religious and not being 'worldly wise'.

c) You would be very hard pressed to find anyone at that time who was anti-slavery and then, as a result of a Christian conversion or awakening, suddenly decided to start keeping slaves. However, there are numerous incidences of slave owners stopping the practice as a result of a religious conversion or awakening. That indicates that the anti-slavery position was recognised as more consistent with Christian morality than the pro-slavery one.

d) The only people who supported slavery were those who stood to gain from it economically and socially. In other words, no one took a sacrificial stance to uphold slavery as a moral position. However, there were a great many Christians who stood to lose both economically and socially because of their abolitionist position - yet they made huge sacrifice for the moral position of abolition.

e) The WWJD principle (what would Jesus do). Bearing in mind that Jesus is, in Christian theology, the fullest revelation of God - His example is paramount. Jesus never owned slaves (as compared with, say, Mohammed). Even those who were pro-slavery never suggested that Jesus, under any circumstances, would traffic slaves. But it was a consistent argument by abolitionists that Jesus announced that He came to set the captives free (Luke 4:18-19).

Based on all these facts, it is very clear that those who really wanted their moral stance on the subject to be informed by Jesus were overwhelmingly anti-slavery (often at great personal cost). And those who were pro-slavery were predominantly so for reasons of personal gain.

marienbad · 12-06-2012 11:59pm

PDN wrote: »

That is rich given your track record.

I answered your question, but if you want it again, or phrased differently ....

Yes.

a) Firstly, you are lumping together as 'Christians' virtually everybody who happened to be born into church-going families in Europe or North America. Obviously such a broad brush stroke is self-defeating when discussing a moral code, since it includes large numbers of people who haven't the faintest interest in basing their lives on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ.

b) Secondly, throughout Christian history, you find that those that spoke most about the teaching of Jesus as being a guide for morality were the same people who agitated against slavery. These people were often mocked by their opponents as being excessively religious and not being 'worldly wise'.

c) You would be very hard pressed to find anyone at that time who was anti-slavery and then, as a result of a Christian conversion or awakening, suddenly decided to start keeping slaves. However, there are numerous incidences of slave owners stopping the practice as a result of a religious conversion or awakening. That indicates that the anti-slavery position was recognised as more consistent with Christian morality than the pro-slavery one.

d) The only people who supported slavery were those who stood to gain from it economically and socially. In other words, no one took a sacrificial stance to uphold slavery as a moral position. However, there were a great many Christians who stood to lose both economically and socially because of their abolitionist position - yet they made huge sacrifice for the moral position of abolition.

e) The WWJD principle (what would Jesus do). Bearing in mind that Jesus is, in Christian theology, the fullest revelation of God - His example is paramount. Jesus never owned slaves (as compared with, say, Mohammed). Even those who were pro-slavery never suggested that Jesus, under any circumstances, would traffic slaves. But it was a consistent argument by abolitionists that Jesus announced that He came to set the captives free (Luke 4:18-19).

Based on all these facts, it is very clear that those who really wanted their moral stance on the subject to be informed by Jesus were overwhelmingly anti-slavery (often at great personal cost). And those who were pro-slavery were predominantly so for reasons of personal gain.

At last, the 17th-19th century slave trade was against this objective moral code , see PDN that was'nt so hard after all.

As for the rest of your post , interesting as it may be in its own right , it is not all together relevant to what I asked , Let us stick to modern history if we can for the moment.

Now are you saying that all of those substantial numbers of christians that not only did not oppose the slave trade but in many cases profited from it were well aware that it was against this objective moral code but choose for reasons of personal gain to overide better instinct in themselves ?

PDN · 13-06-2012 8:18am

marienbad wrote: »

At last, the 17th-19th century slave trade was against this objective moral code , see PDN that was'nt so hard after all.

No, it wasn't very hard. Which makes me wonder why it had to be repeated before you can grasp it.

As for the rest of your post , interesting as it may be in its own right , it is not all together relevant to what I asked , Let us stick to modern history if we can for the moment.

It is totaly relevant. And your false claim otherwise confirms why other posters have decided it is waste of time engaging in discussion with you.

Now are you saying that all of those substantial numbers of christians that not only did not oppose the slave trade but in many cases profited from it were well aware that it was against this objective moral code but choose for reasons of personal gain to overide better instinct in themselves ?

Possibly. Some certainly were in that position, which would explain why the people they recognised as living more moral lives than themselves (ie saints) were generally from the class of people who were more zealous about living by a morality based more on the words and actions of Jesus and less on pragmatism and economics.

Others, due to self-deception, found it more comfortable to believe a ;moral' position that justified their behaviour and didn't threaten their position.

A similar phenomenon can be seen today whereby many Republicans in the US cite the few scientific reports that deny man-made global warming. Do they genuinely believe what they are saying? In many cases they do - even though the only body of scientists that reaches such a conclusion is the one employed by the oil industry.

In the same way there were some Christians (a minority, thank God) in the 17th and 18th centuries who, threatened by talk of abolition, gladly accepted a theological rationale that said God was OK with slavery (interestingly enough, such a rationale wwas invariably based on the Old Testament rather than the revelation of God in Jesus Christ, making it bogus as Christian theology).

Indeed the same forces are at work today. Some Christians, choosing to accept rationales that justify their lifestyle or political affiliation, ignore the words and example of Jesus when it comes to immigration or the war in Iraq.

Which brings us back to the main point - one which has been demonstrated to you again and again.

The fact that people, even Christians, disagree about morality, does not disprove in any way the existence of an objective moral code. And the pursuit of this objective moral code (often by Christians but sometimes by others), even though it sometimes sllow due to the sin that causes men to protect their societal and economic privilieges, is what has made the world a better place today. That's why we don't have official legal slavery (except in places like North Korea or China), why the age of consent was raised to take child prostitutes off the streets, why a black man can become President of the US, and even why workers are allowed to form trade unions and earn a minimum wage.

carlmango11 · 13-06-2012 12:25pm

boynesider wrote: »

The question must be asked, if religious belief were to completely disappear from humanity, would chaos not reign? If every single person were to accept that they were merely animals in a material world, cut loose from any prevailing moral system, would they not then revert back to the behavioral characteristics of an animal? (meaning the physically strong would dominate, and would subjugate and use all others to advance their own needs e.g Bye Bye gender equality!!!).

If religion is the source of absolute morality then why don't we follow it exactly as it is written in the book? Why don't we kill those who work on Sundays or be totally intolerant of gays or people of other religions? There are absolutely horrible teachings in the bible (worse than those I mentioned) which we just totally ignore. That's because they conflict with our modern morality which isn't absolute. It is objective and has evolved with human civilization.

So how can you say that learn morality from the bible? We don't. Relgious people link up our modern morality with any matches they find in the bible and conclude that the bible was responsbile and is therefore the absolute word on ethics.

boynesider wrote: »

These are the realities which the likes of Dawkins, Hitchens and other aggressive atheists have failed to consider as they are so caught up in their arrogant belief that they possess an ultimate knowledge which must be forced upon everybody. Do they not realise that as predominantly old, weak, grey-haired men, they simply would be bullied and abused, and may not even survive in their idealised world in which religion and its concomitants have been eradicated? It astonishes me that such clearly intelligent men can be so blind to the simple and inarguable truth, that the things which have allowed society to develop, such as the rule of law and the willingness to sacrifice individual needs in order to act for a collective, communal goal, are completely meaningless without the moral systems which religious belief has established. Do they suggest that we abandon spiritual beliefs yet maintain the attendant moral beliefs which has essentially given them so much? Too me this would be hypocritical and dishonest.

They don't think they possess the ultimate knowledge and I find it incredible that you can't see that it is the religious that think they do. The religious think they know what happens after you die; what created us; what decides our fate and the have little more reason to than a self-contradicting book.

The only thing the likes of Dawkins and Hitchens promote is for people to think about what they blindly believe in. They promote objective thinking. They don't say they have "ultimate knowledge". They do however, well at least in Dawkins' case, claim there is indisputable evidence of the likes of evolution which has been tested and proven again and again. They believe it for a very good reason.

Society won't break down without religion because we are altruistic beings who are intelligent enough to know that such anarchy would benefit few people and push us backwards in progress. Altruism exists without religion it's seen all across the natural world.

Hmm better get back to work..

marienbad · 13-06-2012 1:17pm

PDN wrote: »

No, it wasn't very hard. Which makes me wonder why it had to be repeated before you can grasp it.

It is totaly relevant. And your false claim otherwise confirms why other posters have decided it is waste of time engaging in discussion with you.

Possibly. Some certainly were in that position, which would explain why the people they recognised as living more moral lives than themselves (ie saints) were generally from the class of people who were more zealous about living by a morality based more on the words and actions of Jesus and less on pragmatism and economics.

Others, due to self-deception, found it more comfortable to believe a ;moral' position that justified their behaviour and didn't threaten their position.

A similar phenomenon can be seen today whereby many Republicans in the US cite the few scientific reports that deny man-made global warming. Do they genuinely believe what they are saying? In many cases they do - even though the only body of scientists that reaches such a conclusion is the one employed by the oil industry.

In the same way there were some Christians (a minority, thank God) in the 17th and 18th centuries who, threatened by talk of abolition, gladly accepted a theological rationale that said God was OK with slavery (interestingly enough, such a rationale wwas invariably based on the Old Testament rather than the revelation of God in Jesus Christ, making it bogus as Christian theology).

Indeed the same forces are at work today. Some Christians, choosing to accept rationales that justify their lifestyle or political affiliation, ignore the words and example of Jesus when it comes to immigration or the war in Iraq.

Which brings us back to the main point - one which has been demonstrated to you again and again.

The fact that people, even Christians, disagree about morality, does not disprove in any way the existence of an objective moral code. And the pursuit of this objective moral code (often by Christians but sometimes by others), even though it sometimes sllow due to the sin that causes men to protect their societal and economic privilieges, is what has made the world a better place today. That's why we don't have official legal slavery (except in places like North Korea or China), why the age of consent was raised to take child prostitutes off the streets, why a black man can become President of the US, and even why workers are allowed to form trade unions and earn a minimum wage.

Again PDN this really is whatever you want it to be ,I have already said that for argument sake let us assume that there is a objective moral code.

The issue the becomes ( again as I have already said ) how does one access it ?

You yourself have kindly provided us with the methodology in post 4423 on how to do so .

We can now see that on issue that is against that moral code substantial numbers of christians had contradictory views on it.

So how can we explain that ? And what it all comes down to is you (not you personally) are right and the other guy is wrong .

In the meantime the objective moral code exists out there somewhere floating serenely majestically and eternally through the universe while down here in the muck we manage as best we can in the short time given to us.

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Comments