Lets start out here, is slavery wrong - if there is no God? - if there is a God?
Then lets go here, if there is no God:
Are we just another form of animal?
Is stealing ok if you are willing to serve the time?
Is murder ok if you are willing to chance getting caught and accept punishment?
Without God - can there be a moral code? If so what is enforcing it? And who sets
it? What if one’s code differs from another?
My opinion is without God - nothing is morally right or wrong and there are no
human rights - all we get is animal rights - the right to attempt to survive. Slavery
would be ok, not right or wrong
Now lets say there is a God
So when did God say thou shall not own people? I thought that throughout history
owning people was considered normal and men owned their wives and children.
Abusing slaves is wrong but this is not what I am saying.
I (and I’m sure many others) have always had a problem defining right and wrong if you leave God out of the equasion. I can see if something is illeagal or leagal but thats not the same as right and wrong.
Lissener, it’s even more ridiculous than you think.
K2dave is suggesting that if there were no God, then slavery would be okay. But if the Christian God exists (just getting ahead of the masses who will ask about Odin, or the IPU – I think this is who K2dave was thinking of), then slavery would STILL be okay, since God never said it was wrong to own people.
Um, okay, k2, so what’s your point? Since most people pretty much agree that slavery is wrong, I’ll let you try to explain which of your two assumptions is wrong – if not both of them.
Keenan - actually 2 points maybe they should have been 2 posts
1: where do people who are atheist get their moral code from?
and
2: Why is slavery wrong
2a - if there is no God (this could possibly be answered in question 1)?
2b if there is a God, and yes I am talking about Judio Christian God ?
(Actually there have been many, many more threads on this, but they were lost in our recent move to Vbb). (“How can Atheists be moral?” is the “-gry” question of Great Debates, IMHO.)
k2dave, are you unaware that the Bible specifically allows slavery? God Himself makes no mention that slavery is wrong; He gives rules as to what you can and cannot do to slaves, and what slaves can and cannot be allowed to do. So, I guess if you follow the Bible there is nothing wrong with slavery, hmmm?
[Exod 21]
1
"These are the laws you are to set before them:
2
"If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. […]
7
"If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as menservants do.
8
If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself, he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her.
9
If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. […]
20
"If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished,
21
but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.
Leviticus 25
1
The LORD said to Moses on Mount Sinai, […]
42
Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves.
43
Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your God.
44
"`Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves.
45
You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property.
46
You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
So, “purchased Hebrew servants” were set free after 6 years, and you weren’t supposed to enslave fellow Jews. Apparently everyone else was fair game, though. Oh, and you weren’t supposed to beat them to death, but if they got up after a day or two, no problem.
Thanks Mod, it feels good not being beat up on this thread. Was checking out some of the older threads you provided - lots of stuff - went through 2 and followed some links, intersting stuff but no answers yet. The best that I came up with is that it is in your best interest to act certain ways - but no uniformity - which I think itself is telling.
[ul]
[li]There are many different religions in the world.[/li][li]Different religions are generally mutually exclusive.[/li][li]It follows that not all religions can have ‘come from God’ - at least some must be the invention of man.[/li][li]Christians have a sense of morality as do Hindus [replace with religion of your choice][/li][/ul]
It therefore follows that at least some moral codes must be the invention of man and therefore God is not a prerequisite for morality.
Pocket summary of various moralities:
[ul][li]Most monotheistic moralities[/li]Do these things or you will offend the Lord your God[li]Most atheist moralities[/li]Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. [li]Most polytheistic moralities[/li]Do anything and you’re likely to offend one god or another, if they care about you at all. Oh, by the way, do unto others, etc.[li]Most pagan moralities[/li]Magic good; fire baaad. Do unto others, etc.[li]Deism[/li]God created you, and there is perfect order to the universe. By the way, you’re on your own, so do unto others, etc.[li]Buddhism[/li]First, there is a mountain, then there is no mountain. Then there is.[/ul]
that there is no absolute ( = fixed unchangable) morality with atheist - they follow their own code that they make up in their mind for what they preceive is the ‘greater good’. They set up in their own minds what is right or wrong in according to their surroundings and sometimes what is convienent.
Religious folks too, will try to justify their actions on the basis of the “greater good” or the convienence or come up with some excuse or just misunderstand Gods word. But their is a written, fixed underling code inspired by God.
[Different religions are generally mutually exclusive.
It follows that not all religions can have ‘come from God’ - at least some must be the invention of man. ]
Christians have a sense of morality as do Hindus [replace with religion of your choice]
It therefore follows that at least some moral codes must be the invention of man and therefore God is not a prerequisite for morality.]
true but each religon believes the moral code is provided by a higher being who created us and cares for us and who would not mislead us - and can enforce it to one degree or another and will reward one for following it. This could apply to a parrent-child relationship for an atheist but again who’s moral code?
Well, the way it seems to go with religious folks is: Subjective personal judgement to believe in certain God(s)===>subjective judgment that this/these God(s) has/have an objective fixed morality===> Subjective interpretation of what God’s objective morality is. Ask any theist what God wants, and you’ll likely get agreement on the big things, but only tiny inbred religious groups agree on the objective morality/immorality of everything. Among the theists on this board, most go with the “Do unto others…” but you’ll find a wide varience of opinion on the morality of homosexuality, drugs, wearing mixed fibers, atheism, etc. So, an objective morality may exist for theists, but they have only their subjective opinions of what it is to go on. And if you think there’s only one way for a theist to interpret their Holy Book/personal revelation, and it’s objectively apparent to everyone and anyone who thinks different is clearly Wrong, well, I’m afraid I’ll have to snicker a bit. Morality, even if the rules are written in a Holy Book, requires a certain degree of personal interpretation. For example, you’re told not to steal, but what if you are starving? What if you steal a gun from a murderer? God apparently does not have the patience to elucidate every possible circumstance you could find yourself in, and so relies to a certain degree on your subjective judgment to choose what is best. For a theist, there may very well be an objective morality out there, but s/he must rely on his/her subjective interpretation of what it is, which renders the actual moral code used by the theist subjective as well.
For atheists/agnostics, we make a subjective choice as to what is our moral code, just as a theist makes a subjective choice as to which God to follow. So for a theist it goes: Subjective choice to believe in God==>follow moral code given by that God as interpeted by said theist, while for an atheist it goes: Subjective choice of moral code==>follow moral code as interpreted by said atheist. Simply because our choice of morality is personal and not given from On High, it does not necessarily mean it is a whim or casual or self-serving, any more than your personal decision to believe in the God you chose is a whim or casual or self-serving because it was not mandated by someone outside you. Now, both theists and atheists could make “mistakes” that result in them thinking actions are moral that we generally do not consider so; the theist could have decided that a particularly nasty brand of Satanism is the way to go, and s/he’ll get an absolute moral code all right, just one the rest of humanity may not agree with. Or s/he may interpret thier Holy Book in a way that seems evil to us. And the atheist may pick as their morality some sort of “every-man-for-himself”-ism, which we don’t consider terribly moral. But the point I am trying to make, is that the choosing of a moral code is at its root a personal decision for everyone, whether you choose it directly as an atheist does, or whether you first choose which religion to follow and take your moral code from your interpretations of their statements about it.
I generally believe that moral behavior is the best way for humans to work together, therefore it is to all our benefits to be moral. I am not good solely for hope of a reward, nor do I avoid evil solely for fear of punishment, although I find that as a general rule being a good person has many benefits. I try to do the right thing because I want to be a good person. Most theists, as well, would not say they are good because they desire heaven and fear hell; they do good because they love God and their fellow man, and wish to do what is best. If a person only does good because he will be rewarded, and only avoids evil because he will be punished, do you think that he is truly moral? Both atheists and theists can be influenced by rewards/punishments, but the true heart of morality is love, either love of one’s fellow man, love of good, or love of God.
[I generally believe that moral behavior is the best way for humans to work together, therefore it is to all our benefits to be moral. ]
Gaudere - this statement may be true, but we are not worker bees or the Borg from Startrek. It would be advantagious for you to appear moral and go along with society to do good, but do what is self serving. Now with religion you have someone more powerful then you watching - if you don’t believe in God what is stopping you from this behavior?
All moral decisions made by humans with free will, whether religious or atheistic, ultimately devolve to subjective aesthetic decisions. Lacking objective proof of God’s (or a god or gods’) punishment of immorality and reward of morality, how can the basis be different?
I am specifically omitting in this discussion the manner in which to evaluate laws and other coercively enforced societal standards of behavior. Rather, I discuss only those standards to which a person holds him or herself to, without regard to societal expectations.
A religious choice is no less subjective than an atheistic choice; you must choose which god to believe in, which interpretation of that god’s wishes to believe in. Again, lacking objective proof, your decision cannot be anything but subjective: you choose the belief that suits your personal nature.
The fundamental contradiction is to attempt to define a particular morality as a priori objectively correct and then search for an objective basis to make it correct. One has no more justification to apply objective standards to morality than to art; there is no “objectively correct” way to paint or sculpt, there are only more or less popular aesthetic opinions.
I care about other people; I generally don’t wish to do things that hurt them, even if it benefits me. The fact that it is generally beneficial to me to not do bad things is a nice bonus.
If God said it was OK, would you rape, steal and kill if you could get away with it? If you would not, the reasons you would not do so probably approximate an atheist’s reasons to not do so even if s/he would not get caught. If you would rape, steal and kill if God said it was permissable, I hope you don’t get a message from God like some of those before you have:
[Joshua 10:40] So Joshua subdued the whole region, including the hill country, the Negev, the western foothills and the mountain slopes, together with all their kings. He left no survivors. He totally destroyed all who breathed, just as the LORD, the God of Israel, had commanded.
[Genesis 22:2] Then God said, “Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love, and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains I will tell you about.”
Etc., Etc. Have you decided whether or not slavery (including beating the slave severely) is wrong by God’s fixed, unchangable, objective moral code yet? And keep in mind that your decision about God’s objective morals is indeed subjective; the Judeo-Christian God’s words have been used to both condone and condemn slavery.
I didnt read all the other posts because im lazy and tired. But…in direct answer to the OP…i think you are missing your own point, God is a tool used to try and control us, morals and ethics are bullshit.
