Morality without god

Have the thiests been scared off? I was enjoying this :-( (my luck they'll all post now)I'm gonna have to depart for a bit soon (date with a rather gorgeous and kinky english lady) - but before I do I wanted one more stab at the immorality of Christian doctorine, and here it is;The concept of a literal Hell is grossly immoral, no person no matter how evil can ever do enough harm to justify an eternity of torture - it simply doesn't match up, a finite life (even if it spent every hour of every day dedicated to evil) could never commit enough wrong to warrant being tortured for all eternity, eternity is just so much more vast than a human life time.Aside from that I'm not particularly in favour of capital punishment most people can be helped - but I guess I'm just nicer than god

The Christian? You do realize that you guys don't agree even on the topics you yourself have instanced, let alone dozens of others I could mention? And the same Christian can in fact go from conservative to liberal on various issues (or, I suppose, vice versa, though this is rarer) and so disagree with his former self.Christians don't have a single unchanging standard of morality. What they have in common yesterday, today, and tomorrow, is the perpetual belief that whatever their own personal standard of morality is right now, it is the same as the single unchanging standard of morality in the mind of God. Slave-owners, heretic-burners, genocides, every despicable person you can think of --- they all thought to themselves: "These aren't my opinions, these are the immutable opinions of the one true God." Unless and until they changed their minds, after which they still thought: "These aren't my opinions, these are the immutable opinions of the one true God."The one "solid" belief that unites Christians past present and future (and Muslims, and Jews, and Hindus and whoever) is this: "Whatever I'm doing is God's work; whatever I want is God's will, and whatever I say is God's word." And when they change their minds, even to the extent of converting to a whole 'nother religion, they then say: "Oh, well, I was wrong in the past, I was misguided; however, whatever I'm doing now is God's work; whatever I want now is God's will, and whatever I say now is God's word."And this, the theists proclaim, is objective morality, a "solid standard"! Even if there is a God with unchanging opinions, his self-proclaimed followers do not possess it. They make their minds up about what is moral, based on their whims, their prejudices, their personal experience, peer-group pressure and the standards of their society --- and then assume that God agrees with whatever they come up with, and declare their opinion to be the opinion of God.The difference, then, between the atheist and the theist in this respect is that the atheist has the humility not to declare his opinions to be God's.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

It doesn't, I was just nitpicking your criticism. You said they'd need the book on the boat, but really they'd have needed it before then.The quote seems to be equivocating the word "free". That is, if someone frees some slaves then they're not really going to be "free". That don't make much sense to me, but I was never that good with profundity. Well if you enslave them then they're not free, what it seems to be saying is the one's who refuse to not be free will end up choosing to be killed. That is, the people who allowed themselves to be enslaved weren't willing to die for their freedom, and, I suppose, they weren't really "free".

I want you to give me all your money.There's always exceptions. The thief who wants you to let them out of jail so they can get more stuff. The meth addict who's been tricked by addiction into wanting to slowly destroy their body. We shouldn't follow your rule with them. Sure, the masochist (not sadist) breaks the logic of the rule. What are the other examples?

Yes, Rahvin, the very first thing I said on this subject acknowledged that some Christians justified slavery.But it was Christians who protested it, REAL Christians, for Christian reasons, and have to be credited with finally ending it.And illegal slavery is not the topic, as I pointed out to Theodoric when he made the same point about its still going on, the topic is culturally institutionalized slavery, you know, what they had in ancient Israel and in the South of the US. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Any differing preferences. It doesn't have to be as eye-catching as sadism/masochism. It usually isn't. Much more mundane disagreements "break" the letter of the rule all the time.One person might like financial assistance to get through a rough time; another person may not accept such assistance.One person might like it if I gave him an apple pie; another person might be allergic to apples, or just not like the taste.The "Golden Rule" falls apart the moment that you try to strictly apply its literal wording, but the spirit of the rule, which can be expressed in far more accurate ways, is still great advice.But "Try to consider the needs and desires of others in your actions, and strive to maximize happiness while minimizing suffering for both individuals and the community as a whole" doesn't have quite the same catchy cadence as "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

I see, 'cause yeah: I wouldn't want someone to give me assistance that I didn't want and I wouldn't want someone to give me food that I was allergic to... so I wouldn't have someone do those things unto me and therefore according to the rule I shouldn't do them unto others.

Which is a code you got thanks to the Christians who worked to end slavery. The explanation I've been supporting here is that He had the wisdom not to burden the people with a change in their habits that He knew they could not keep. Same as He wisely did not demand that they not divorce their wives although as Jesus said He hates divorce and from Jesus' time on that was to be the standard. It took longer for slavery to be abolished. When people would not have given it up for anything. God's wisdom in dealing with human frailty is certainly not appreciated by the humanly frail these days.

Actually, I thought th topic was "morality without god," and the current tangent of that discussion was "is the Biblical god moral himself, since he condoned slavery?"You've tried to claim that your gods condoning of slavery is mere "semantics," but that of course validates the exception I gave previously: "unless...you're using a different version of English." Since, you know...giving guidelines for the application of slavery as opposed to doing anything to limit or ban the practice is the very [i]definition of the word "condone."You've added additional off-topic tangents dealing with revisionist history, and many of us have taken the bait.I'd be happy to get back on topic.Here's a good starter: I'm an Atheist, I decry many of the Ten Commandments as at best useless and at worst wicked, I eschew "Christian morality" in favor of empathetic utilitarianism. I haven't assaulted, murdered, raped, stolen from, or intentionally caused any injury beyond damaging pride. I give to the needy when I'm able, and I support using my (and others) tax dollars to do more to help the poor and less to help the rich. I favor healthcare for everyone, and I do not prejudge people based on race, nationality, sexual preference, gender identity, or even religion, even if I might have words about the religion itself (since most people are decent even when their religion tells them to be otherwise, like Christians who accept homosexuals).I think I'm a pretty moral person. Not perfect, certainly, but I think I'm just one example of a person who's completely able to be moral without the instruction (or threat) of some deity.I'd even argue that, since god almost certainly does not exist, all morality exists without god. I realize that won't go over well with you, but that's okay, neither do other facts.

Possibly billions. Who had become violent and polluted the earth with their evil doings. Something that was not good for humanity and destroyed the Creation. You can find the answer to where did the water come from on many other threads here. Which we deserved. Christians recognized that it opposed God's laws and brought about the abolitionist movement in the US. Hardly. He had the wisdom not to push the people beyond their tolerance. It's SO amusing to see the atheists championing what were originally Christian causes and giving themselves credit for them, though throughout history nobody raised a finger against slavery EXCEPT the Christians. Or if some did it was few and far between. Lot of posturing and swaggering there that's going to go down with a crash some day. It's actually demonically inspired I believe, not something you're in a position to recognize, but something that comes about when a culture has degenerated as far as ours obviously already has, on the way to complete destruction. Consider what happened to the Roman Empire. A culture reaches the point of tolerating homosexuality and all kinds of sexual abuses just before its collapse.

But by no stretch did the slavery in question include the criminal underground in human trafficking for crying out loud.

Of course not! Killing all the men, boys, and grown women in a town and "keeping the virgins for yourselves" is completely different!Your post turns my stomach, Faith.

Retch your guts out Coragyps and all the other self righteous know it alls here who dare to judge God.

What is being judged is your after-the-fact rationalization in a sad attempt to justify the unjustifiable.You are not among the gods. There can be no accusation of defience by you when you are judged.You accept slavery as long as your god requires it? fine. But don't say you are making a moral judgment. You, in your fear and groveling, are accepting an amoral position simply because to refuse such a position would be questioning "God."Neither are you courageous, wise, righteous or morally sound. Your worthlessness to the collective effort for a moral society has been measured precisely. Edited by Eli, : No reason given.

Thank you for your kind words.