[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Oh, and putting on my imp hat for a second, let me just observe that responding in kind when mistreated was solidly codified in Judaic law. Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, life for a life and all that. Did that come from God, or was Moses just making that up? [/quote]
I’d say God.
By the way, why the Chimp as moral beacon? Don’t they go to war and commit infanticide, also?
[quote]Do not do to others what you would not like yourself. Then there will be no resentment against you, either in the family or in the state. (Confucius)
Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful. (The Buddha)
This is the sum of duty; do naught onto others what you would not have them do unto you. (Vyasa)
What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellowman. This is the entire Law; all the rest is commentary. (Rabbi Hillel)
Regard your neighbor’s gain as your gain, and your neighbor�??s loss as your own loss. (Lao Tzu)
That nature alone is good which refrains from doing another whatsoever is not good for itself. (Zoroaster)
What thou avoidest suffering thyself seek not to impose on others. (Epictetus) [/quote]
These appear to mandate no positive duties toward your neighbor, merely avoiding harming your neighbor. And they don’t appeal to a divine mandate.
If morals are behavior patterns, then I might practice these behaviors and I might not, but I will most likely do what I think benefits me the most at the time, not because it is “good” or “right.” If I’m acting out some animalistic behavior pattern, I’ll do whatever I feel will benefit me and my progeny.
Moreover, if morals are behavior patterns, humans have no reason to reform any of their behavior patterns. Slavery was a behavior pattern of humans for a long time. So was Jim Crow in the United States. If we all behaved that way, then why reform it?
Also, when we talk about behavior patterns, what time period are we referring to, what geography, what cultures?
Are you now going to make a relativistic argument?
Morals-as-behavior patterns don’t buy you anything philosophically. Actually, your philosophy, (which is normative), has now degenerated into psychology or sociology, (which are descriptive). We “musn’t” do anything, we just “do.”
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Jefferson owned a Bible. He just removed the parts that discussed miracles and retained a sort of Christianity that was consistent with his deism, but still largely Christian.[/quote]
“The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills.”-- Jefferson
“Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him [Jesus] by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being.” --Jefferson
“I am a sect unto myself” --Jefferson
Again you make the claim that denial of God presupposes denial of morality. This is preposterous. An evolutionist does not deny the existence of life, he only denies the idea that all life has a divine origin. Similarly, an atheist may adhere to a moral code every bit as just as that of a Christian or a Jew or a Buddhist, without being forced to believe in the divine origin of all morality.
And at last we find common ground.
I’ve never claimed Atheists don’t have morals. I’ve claimed that, when pressed, they can’t account for the morals they have. I’m not seeing any reason to change my mind yet on this thread.
If you’re going to argue for a set of moral standards from a scientific naturalist’s perspective, being an atheistic evolutionist, have at it.
Gotta run.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
I’ve never claimed Atheists don’t have morals. I’ve claimed that, when pressed, they can’t account for the morals they have. I’m not seeing any reason to change my mind yet on this thread.
[/quote]
Yeah. I’d hope the Atheists here don’t supspect I believe they’re incapable of living a ‘moral’ life. The Golden Rule was mentioned, but let’s not forget the parable of the Good Samaritan.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
All societies are doomed to failure, whether or not they respect these conditions. There’s not been one society in history that’s prevailed since man first appeared on the scene. [/quote]
Although the African San (bushmen) people come pretty damn close. The oldest people genetically, and still (at least until the 1950s) living the same way as we all did in the Palaeolithic era.
On San society (from Marjorie Shostak)
[i]"Traditionally the San were an egalitarian society. Although they did have hereditary chiefs, the chief’s authority was limited and the bushmen instead made decisions among themselves, on a consensus basis.
"Women’s status was relatively equal. Women did not begin bearing children until about 18 or 19 years of age due to late first menstruation because of the low calorie and low fat diet and had them spaced four years apart, due to lack of enough breast milk to feed more than one child at a time, and the requirements of mobility leading to the difficulty of carrying more than one child at a time.
“Children were very well behaved and treated kindly by their parents and group. Children spent much of the day playing with each other and are not segregated by sex, neither sex is trained to be submissive or fierce, and neither sex is restrained from expressing the full breadth of emotion that seems inherent in the human spirit”[/i]
What little I know about the San religion comes from watching a South African movie called The Gods Must Be Crazy. I see no reason to disagree with this assessment.
[quote]electric_eales wrote:
Wow guys!
I am still following, but its all going a bit above my head now.
Can someone please explain the corraltion between communism and atheism please? I do not understand this?
Also where abouts in the bible does it say about god killing 42 children? Thats some amazing atheiest ammo righ there!
Cheers guys
And Pookie, you da man![/quote]
May I “resurrect” this subject to point out the errors of many posters, with a point in mind?
First: Where in the text does God act?
He doesn’t. The text indicated that Elisha cursed the “kids” (according to Rashi, “empty ones”–empty of moral precepts), and two bears acted. It does not say that God sent the bears or God did anything.
Second: what deaths?
My translations indicated that the aforementioned bears did not kill, but “tore” or “mangled” the 42 children. The Hebrew word has nothing to do with kill, murder, or death. If the author of Kings wanted to write “kill,” she would have done so.
The indictment of God fails on the evidence presented.
It would never make it to grand jury deliberation.
(As for Isaiah, another time, if someone insists.)
My points:
Throughout the incredible arc of the narrative of the Old Testament, one clear theme is the withdrawal of God from intervention in men’s lives. (The prophets do not see God, they hear his voice, or have a vision, or call on Him. There is nothing like the conversational diety known to Adam, Noah, and Moses.)
This theme has meaning to those who choose to understand the power of the Bible as literature. If this is of interest, read Richard E. Friedman’s The Hidden Face of God.
One sees what one wants to see, regardless of the literal presentation in the Bible. (See again the errors cited.) Or, the religious answer to Varqanir’s question of the plurality of God in Geneseis 1:26: “Who wishes to err…will err.”
Now the, who profits from this pointless discussion? Varq, and others, are correct, one cannot argue others into believing the unprovable.
And conversely.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Oh, and putting on my imp hat for a second, let me just observe that responding in kind when mistreated was solidly codified in Judaic law. Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, life for a life and all that. Did that come from God, or was Moses just making that up? [/quote]
O, Imp Varqanir, we all know that you know better than that!
The laws of compensation in Exodus 21 are really quite clear, and, only when distorted out of context, are they violent and bloodthirsty.
The context is “fines” so the law is clear: the value of an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, etc. There is an upper limit on compensation for losses.
Nor is the law obligatory, except in the case of murder (Numbers 35.31). There is certainly no compulsion to have a blind and toothless nation!
But consider again the broader context: the laws apply equally among all freemen, and there are not separate rules for the rich and the poor, as in the code of Hamurrabi, where a sheep-stealer would be put to death. And the compensation for loss is commensurate to that loss, and not greater.
Equality under the law, just compensation, civility–Could it get more Jeffersonian, regardless of the author?
Darn it, doc, How can I have any fun on this thread when you go and expose my Devil’s advocacy for what it is?
[quote]pookie wrote:
Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Ergo, god wasn’t the only god at least back then.
Wasn’t quite omnipotent either:
“And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.”
[center]- Judges 1:19 [/center]
[/quote]
Which only goes to show that the old truism “God fights on the side that has the best weapons” was just as true in the days of the Judges as it is today.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
BluePfaltz wrote:
That would set the foundation then for rationalizing that distinct human consciousness and that of other animals are a matter of perception and not belief.
Animals (and many of them) share very similar traits to us Humans, including compassion, language, love and hate. It is of our understanding then, that we justify ours with emotions and intellect. For the rest of the animal kingdom, well…
Id like to think there was a “master blueprint” for it all. It sure would simplify alot of questions I ask regularly. But I’m not so dim as to accept that there is “one” way or “one” answer to explain how and why it has to be that way. Religion likes to maintain structure/function/order of it so sentient people like you and me can conceptualize. In my honest opinion, it takes alot of patience and humanity to see god’s meaning, but I don’t think many people would recognize it for what it is when they do.
Have you read any of the Gospels?[/quote]
I admit, I have read read anecdotal Biblical chapters, as well as the Koran, Bhagavad Gita, Tao Te Ching, L.Ron Hubbard’s Dianetics (least favorite), and Qaballah.
I drew my own conclusions from these combined knowledges and listening to alot of Tool’s albums to comprehend a whole existence of meaning and peace.
This will sound very trite and cliche so forgive me, but I know I can believe in god as god as always believed in me.
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
First: Where in the text does God act?
He doesn’t. The text indicated that Elisha cursed the “kids” (according to Rashi, “empty ones”–empty of moral precepts), and two bears acted. It does not say that God sent the bears or God did anything.[/quote]
Elisha curses the kids “in the name of the LORD” right before the bears come out of the wood.
The curse in the name of the LORD and the arrival of the bears are in the very same verse. To me - and to most reasonable people who don’t happen to be practitioners of pretzel apologetics - that suggests an implied cause and effect. Why even mention the bears and the kids if it’s only some random occurrence? Why not comment on some butterflies that might have been fluttering nearby?
Exculpate God by arguing for pure coincidence? Weak, very weak.
“But your Honor, I know Elisha said ‘Curse them, LORD’ but I swear, the bears went off accidentally.”
[quote]Second: what deaths?
My translations indicated that the aforementioned bears did not kill, but “tore” or “mangled” the 42 children. The Hebrew word has nothing to do with kill, murder, or death. If the author of Kings wanted to write “kill,” she would have done so.[/quote]
Ah. The 42 kids only got mangled. We’re all good then. What’s a little disfigurement or dismemberment between a deity and his peons, right? I mean it’s not like it hurt them like a bitch or that they won’t be scarred and disfigured for life. Maybe a bunch died later on from gangrene, but hey, it’s not God’s fault if they coincidentally got infected.
Here I was, thinking that God was being overly harsh and cruel by killing all those kids. He just tortured, maimed and mangled them a little with those big cuddly teddies. The rascal!
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
I’ve never claimed Atheists don’t have morals. I’ve claimed that, when pressed, they can’t account for the morals they have. I’m not seeing any reason to change my mind yet on this thread. [/quote]
And yet you seem to invoke “divine mandate” as being a prerequisite for any notion of “moral oughtness.”
I believe that a moral man acts morally for one or more of the following three reasons:
At the risk of committing a reductio ad absurdum, I will state that all morality derives from these three motivations: get the carrot, avoid the stick, and just because.
The only difference between your worldview and the worldview of an atheist is that in your world, God doles out the carrots and swings the stick, whereas in the atheist’s world, he doesn’t.
[quote]pookie wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
First: Where in the text does God act?
He doesn’t. The text indicated that Elisha cursed the “kids” (according to Rashi, “empty ones”–empty of moral precepts), and two bears acted. It does not say that God sent the bears or God did anything.
Elisha curses the kids “in the name of the LORD” right before the bears come out of the wood.
The curse in the name of the LORD and the arrival of the bears are in the very same verse. To me - and to most reasonable people who don’t happen to be practitioners of pretzel apologetics - that suggests an implied cause and effect. Why even mention the bears and the kids if it’s only some random occurrence? Why not comment on some butterflies that might have been fluttering nearby?
Exculpate God by arguing for pure coincidence? Weak, very weak.
“But your Honor, I know Elisha said ‘Curse them, LORD’ but I swear, the bears went off accidentally.”
Second: what deaths?
My translations indicated that the aforementioned bears did not kill, but “tore” or “mangled” the 42 children. The Hebrew word has nothing to do with kill, murder, or death. If the author of Kings wanted to write “kill,” she would have done so.
Ah. The 42 kids only got mangled. We’re all good then. What’s a little disfigurement or dismemberment between a deity and his peons, right? I mean it’s not like it hurt them like a bitch or that they won’t be scarred and disfigured for life. Maybe a bunch died later on from gangrene, but hey, it’s not God’s fault if they coincidentally got infected.
Here I was, thinking that God was being overly harsh and cruel by killing all those kids. He just tortured, maimed and mangled them a little with those big cuddly teddies. The rascal!
[/quote]
But you are proving my point: you are reading into the text and not reading the text itself. The meaning of the text is derived from the question: Why does it say this and not something else?
It does not say that God acted through bears, or that the children were killed. Why not?
And, why the need to “interpret” the text for your purpose? If you choose to err, I cannot alter your vision.
Please, go ahead and indict God, if you so choose, but if you use the text, you will be called upon to split such hairs.
And you might find the Bible all the more interesting, regardless of your assumed beliefs.
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
But you are proving my point: you are reading into the text and not reading the text itself. The meaning of the text is derived from the question: Why does it say this and not something else?[/quote]
That’s bull and you know it. Literature is built upon metaphor, imagery, analogy, etc. The structure of the text speaks as much as the text itself.
You ask why the text says what it says? Fine. Also ask yourself why the curse and the appearance of the bears are in the same verse? If the choice of the words is of paramount importance, then surely the structure of the text is just as important and conveys just as much information. Why are those two actions mentioned in the same verse? Because those two actions, the curse and the coming of the bears, are directly related to one another. Why aren’t the bears mentioned first? Because effect does not precede cause.
Splitting hairs? We’re not arguing over whether the blue sky is best described by “cerulean” vs. “lapis lazuli” here. We’re talking about an action directly followed by an event - in a single verse - and you’re blithely suggesting that the text is to be read as some random occurrence that struck the author’s fancy.
Have you ever convinced anyone with that argument? And if so, could you do it again when they’re awake?
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
The only difference between your worldview and the worldview of an atheist is that in your world, God doles out the carrots and swings the stick, whereas in the atheist’s world, he doesn’t.[/quote]
And in reality, we’re only told about God’s carrots and sticks. He never produces them.
If you take the physical laws of nature, you cannot ignore them. Jump of the 10th floor a building, and you will fall. Sleep outside naked in the snow and you’ll freeze to death. You can’t ignore them even if you try.
But with the “divinely mandated” moral laws of God, you can ignore them freely. Kill? No problem, go ahead. Steal? Sure. Take it and run. There’s no compulsion from that “divine mandate.” It’s no more than an empty label. You’re told about the carrots and sticks, but like God Himself, you’ll never see them.
[quote]Pookie: Where in the text does God act?
Doc: He doesn’t. The text indicated that Elisha cursed the “kids”, and two bears acted. It does not say that God sent the bears or God did anything.
Pookie: The curse in the name of the LORD and the arrival of the bears are in the very same verse. That suggests an implied cause and effect.[/quote]
Now here is something I never expected to see. An atheist arguing for divine causality versus a Christian arguing for coincidence.
[quote]pookie wrote:
But with the “divinely mandated” moral laws of God, you can ignore them freely. Kill? No problem, go ahead. Steal? Sure. Take it and run. There’s no compulsion from that “divine mandate.” It’s no more than an empty label. You’re told about the carrots and sticks, but like God Himself, you’ll never see them.
[/quote]
I’m not clear what you mean here.