Understood.

Oh, as a hypothetical "if God exists, and the things the Bible says he did are true" discussion, then yes, I'm guilty of doing just that. How can anyone doing a logical analysis reasonably conclude otherwise?

I mean, activities such as torture, killing defenseless men, women, children and babies, and committing genocide are generally regarded as evil by Christians, yet the Bible says God did all of that and more.

And if God created EVERYTHING -- which would, by definition, include Satan, people like Hitler, as well as such niceties as the ebola virus, etc -- then he is ultimately responsible for all of the evil there is.

Below, sign that should be on God's desk.

I went 35 years without ever questioning and the first time I had reason to question I realized my belief was completely unjustified. Like any rational person, I would change my mind in the face of overwhelming evidence.

I don't believe in hell.  I believe in mint juleps and not working.  Now prove that I should care about other people so much that I must give those up and get up at 6:00 am every morning to work.  

One of the fun parts for believers has to be that "God", in its infinite glory and in between earthquakes, tsunamis,  Ebola outbreaks and other tasks, still takes the time to not only enjoy sports, but also assist in the outcome of sporting events.

Fortunately believers waste no time in thanking him for allowing a blown coverage resulting in a touchdown, among other gifts. Must be disappointing to the believers on the opposing teams to realize "God" was rooting against them. 

I can't think of any better explanations than I already offered regarding the Christian view on mortal life. It may be that I am doing just what I accused you of, of inserting too much of my own thinking into the philosophy. I simply cannot wrap my head around the notion of it somehow being both. My mind insists it is a binary, and that there can only be one 'real' world. Pity me when I contemplate the multiverse theories. "*grumble* There's no multiverse, fools, the universe is just bigger than you thought!"

I haven't spent much time contemplating Philosophers(TM). It feels a lot like discussions here, only there is no reply button. I call it arguing with ghosts, and the only post-mortem "Philosopher" I have ever spent much time debating with in the wee hours is Sagan. I doubt he qualifies as a proper Philosopher, but I always enjoyed reading his thoughts, and it's a pity I never got the chance to meet him.

We agree on the notion of meaning, though. I conclude one makes his own meaning, but I have never seen any real argument, scientific or otherwise, that there is any universal meaning. I used to use that as a weapon in debates, mocking people who had conviction. I'd throw out similar conundrums to theists as you do, and I was even more smug with atheists. I thought I was quite clever, asking them why they didn't simply put a gun to their head now, since nothing they did mattered in the end. It amused me to back them into a corner and make them offer up the same old tired excuses like their progeny, or the fate of humanity. I would just walk them forward to the big crunch or heat death, as one would walk a theist backwards to the original cause. Vanishingly few ever got the point, that there was no meaning but what one defined for himself, and even that was ephemeral. Occasionally, one would ask me why I didn't put a gun to my own head, and I'd just answer that I reckoned my nature was to fuck with them, I was what I was, bound by physical laws, and they had no business complaining when they believed in determinism anyway.

Yes, I have no illusions that I was anything but a dick back in the day. I still have my moments, but mostly I've mellowed. Nihilism doesn't have to be all grimdark. It can be freeing, once you take the next step and admit it's okay to believe pretty much anything, and the step after, where you admit it's okay for others to do likewise. Assuming their philosophy doesn't have them shooting at you.

In that case, my philosophy says it's just fine and dandy to shoot back.

That's using faith for something that goes against good objective evidence. Good objective evidence shows that there wasn't a literal Adam and Eve. God is supposed to want people to know him ... and he then puts up good objective evidence against his tales?

You can't prove smoking causes cancer. You can show mountains of good objective evidence for it. Just the same way (and even more) you can against a literal Adam and Eve.

Faith is not a good way to truth. Multiple religions use faith and come to mutually contradictory conclusions.

You can also just say you don't believe because there's no good objective evidence to believe.

One can criticize the actions/what's attributed to Voldemort, Darth Vader or Allah, even if one doesn't believe such a character exists.

God gave Doubting Thomas good objective evidence and regular blessings. Most people would be pretty cool with that, no need for super-special blessings.

You don't have to get up to go to work at 6:00am. You're free, whether you like it or not.

“Man is condemned to be free” - Sartre



Cute, quick video.

Well, it's been 15 pages and still no scientific basis for morality.  Let me cut to the chase, if Immanuel Kant can't come up with a basis for morality based purely on reason, neither can a guy in a youtube video.  

Once you grant that eternal torture forever for everybody is bad, there's a scientific basis for morality.

Why/how do you think we came to the conclusion slavery is morally bad?

If you have to presuppose a religious view of hell to get to your "scientific" basis for morality, then you by definition don't have a "scientific" basis for morality.  

You don't have to pre-suppose a religious view. It's just a great little kick that most people understand that eternal misery for everybody forever is bad.

You can think that eternal misery forever for everybody is just for the living.

Ancient superstitious people who thought mental illness was because of demons and that the Sun revolved around the Earth understood that eternal torture for everybody forever was bad.

Why/how do you think we came to the conclusion slavery is morally bad?

Where is the scientific formula for morality?

Science tells you about well-being. We're learning more and more about it everyday. You actually have to think and reason about it as well. There's no quick and easy answer.

Is abortion wrong?
What about a raped woman who gets an abortion?
Should we punish the raped woman for getting an abortion? She took a life, no?
Punish the woman who gets an abortion as a form of birth control, but don't punish the rape victim? Why? Either way, they're taking the life of a third party.

Science can tell us about life, like it can tell us about death. Science has learned more about both, that's not saying it knows everything.

Moral questions can be complex. Science learns more and gets better. There's no quick and easy answer. Nobody is saying that "science has solved everything, here's the formula, pack it in". Stop straw-manning.

------------

Still curious how do you think we came to the conclusion that slavery was bad?

We've been arguing for several pages on whether science can answer first order philosophical questions.  It cannot.  Science can have insight on what makes person A happy.  Science cannot say why I should desire person A's happiness.  

As for slavery, it is highly complex but it is a combination of the Christian religion, Enlightenment philosophy, and the economic interests of workers and small farmers.  

Faulty comparison. One of these is not like the other.

If God does exist, it is at least theoretically possible to prove.

If God does not exist, it would be quite impossible to prove.

Erroneous statement. As an atheist, I do not operate on faith and belief.

I do not have faith that there is no God, and I have no beliefs about what may or may not happen after death.

Science can tell you about well-being, not merely what makes person A happy. Once you grant that the worst possible misery forever is bad, science can tell you morality.

The Christian religion took 1700/1800 years to start figuring out that slavery was bad. What happened? Why then? The New Testament tells of how badly one can beat their slaves. People defended slavery using the Bible. Why not make slavery a sin? Did the Bible change?

One can actually say whether a certain conception of God exists or not. The God that wants people to know him but gives good objective evidence against a literal Adam and Eve does not exist.

But, can you actually prove it?

Scientific evidence for morality does exist.

Gregarious animals all do for the best for the group.  Even fighting male chimps within a group get along after establishing their hierarchy.  They will defend, help care for young, help provide sustenance for each other etc all because as a group of like individuals that is the best for the population. Wolfves and orcas do it also.  Broken down this is what our social morality actually is.   We do for the best of the whole.  Where morality fails is when the society looses sight of the group.   That leads to selfish acts by individuals which we see as immoral, rape, murder, theft, abuse etc. are all selfish acts which do not benefit the society.  

Amorality is selfishness at the root.  Humans are selfish, all animals are, it is a self preservation trait all living things have, religion calls this behavior sin and discourages selfishness because it does not benefit society as a whole.  Most religions lose sight of this and build a great deal of wealth, this is because humans are selfish.

I didn't see anybody in this thread say it proved Gods existence. I think BR implied that but I think the existence, complexity, and vastness of the universe and all of creation strengthens faith in a creator or God more than it weakens it.

...faith.

Whatever you say.

Does it? Where?

It does say:
Ephesians 6:9 (NASB): 9And masters, do the same things to them, and give up threatening, knowing that both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no partiality with Him.

Colossians 4:1 (NASB) 1Masters, grant to your slaves justice and fairness, knowing that you too have a Master in heaven.

same part where it talks about the crusades.

Again, ask chuck schumer about whether he prefers a 40 round PMAG or the new 60 round magpul drum and you are going to get the same level of knowledge as asking our local god-haters about religion.

Christianity undermined the fatalistic worldview of the classical world.  The classical worldview had god/ the gods/fate as mysterious beings who controlled every aspect of life.  If something good happened to you, it was because the gods favored you.  If something bad happened to you, like being enslaved, it was because the gods were punishing you.  Under this worldview, the mortal hierarchy was a reflection of the divine hierarchy.  The king or emperor was the most blessed by the gods because they had made him king.  If the crops failed, or he lost a battle, then obviously the gods hated him and were punishing him and the new king was the most blessed by the gods.  All ancient Mediterranean cultures had this worldview - Greeks, Romans, Hebrews, Arabs, etc.  You can see it clearly in the Book of Job.  When bad things happened to Job, everyone thought that God had cursed him.  When good things happened, God had blessed him.  Islam still has this viewpoint, which is why it is one of the cultures most resistant to emancipation.  Why should we not have slaves if Allah cursed them to be slaves?

Christianity undermined this worldview because of the example of Christ and his Disciples.  Christ was executed in the most humiliating way possible, as were the holiest men of Christiandom - the Disciples and the Martrys.  For 300 years Christianity was despised by the mortal hierarchy.  Further, Christianity explicitly taught that the mortal world was often ruled not by God, but by Satan, and that the Kingdom of Heaven was not of this world.  Over time this undermined the classical worldview.  Slaves were not slaves because the gods had justly cursed them to be slaves.  Slaves were slaves because of the evils of man and of Satan, who rule this world and persecute the faithful.  

Once Christianity became the dominant religion of the Roman Empire after Constantine, the empire made reforms to follow St. Paul's command to treat slaves as brothers.  Gladiator games were outlawed, laws protecting slaves were enacted.  Over time, as Rome gave way to the Germanic states of the Middle Ages, slavery was gradually delegitimized, so that on the eve of the discovery of the New World, slavery was forbidden for fellow Christians except as punishment for crimes, which was generally used mostly by Mediterranean nations who needed galley slaves for their galley navies (France, Spain, the Italian states, etc.).  When the New World was discovered, the Western World took a huge step back on slavery.  The money to be made from tropical plantations of coffee, sugar, spices, etc. was insane, and God took a back seat to Mammon.  But still, the prohibitions against slavery of fellow Europeans and Christians held.  Instead, slavery was justified on the grounds that Africans were savages, and less than human.  Even then, when you look at the history of the later abolitionist movements they were strongly Christian.  The movie Amazing Grace has a great portrayal of this.  

So yes, Christianity was instrumental in gradually undermining the institution of slavery.  And yes, it took 1800 years, but it was undermining an institution which had been unquestioned for over 20,000 years.      

Totally agree. Sometimes I think the greatest argument against the existence (or sanity) of God is the fact that the world existence. God wouldn't need worship, or prayer, or a relationship with groveling sinners, or sweet singing angels, or anything to reflect back his glory, and in general the absurd puppet show that is humanity.

There is no reason for any of it. And if you say God doesn't 'need' but 'wants' it comes to the same thing. God needs or wants or desires or seeks nothing You couldn't even say that it's for the benefit of the created when the great majority of them will be wailing and gnashing their teeth in hell for eternity after a lifetime of mostly suffering on earth.

Get out of here with this and your tooth fairy santa clause sky wizard

This natural morality does not apply to anyone outside the tribe.  That same chimp will go hunting for chimps of neighboring tribes, and when they catch one, they hold it down and bite the face and genitals off, slowly and cruelly killing the rival chimp.  That's why I keep using slavery as an example.  For the first 18,800 years of human civilization, it was perfectly acceptable to conquer your neighbors, rape the women and children, enslave the population, and take their stuff.  The kind of egalitarian society we have in the west is not the natural evolution of mankind, it is a beautiful aberration created from an admixture of Greek, Roman, Germanic and Christian culture.  

And when we see the results of mass immigration into Europe, it is clear that much of the rest of the world thinks it is perfectly acceptable to rape, murder, and enslave anyone not of their tribe.  

I even went to church with ya. 

I agree completely.  That is why I posited the statement on the grounds of societies which are large tribes.

BR said that we've "been given all the objective evidence you need. You have a mind that can reason. You have the earth below you and the heavens above you. Matter exists."

That not only doesn't prove God exists, it isn't even objective evidence for it.

Of course it does. But strengthening the faith of the faithful is not the issue.

Now there's an intelligent response.

  Do you think that God gives social creatures such as apes and lesser primates,cetaceans,rodents,schools of fish,flocks of crows...morals so that they are able to interact and continue their species?

 Ultimately,this is what morality does: places constraints upon us so that we have more positive interactions with fewer negative. We are more complex creatures with more complex interactions. We need to interact with people we do not like and not over-react with people perhaps we like too much. There are reasons why even the most primative societies,with no belief in the Abrahamic God, have the same most basic taboos.

Blessed is that servant whom his master will find so doing when he comes. Truly, I say to you that he will make him ruler over all that he has. But if that servant says in his heart, “My master is delaying his coming,” and begins to beat the male and female servants, and to eat and drink and be drunk, the master of that servant will come on a day when he is not looking for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in two and appoint him his portion with the unbelievers. And that servant who knew his master’s will, and did not prepare himself or do according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he who did not know, yet committed things deserving of stripes, shall be beaten with few. For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more. (Luke 12:43–48)

"Slaves, accept the authority of your masters with all deference, not only those who are kind and gentle but also those who are harsh." Peter 2:18

I think that, by design, certain behaviors are ingrained in what can be described as a natural law.  But I also agree with Aristotle that man is partway between the beasts and the gods.  Yes, you can have a basic system of morality that evolves naturally.  And if you are comfortable living in a society like Pakistan or Liberia, then you don't need anything else.  But if you want to create a society like ours, you need philosophy and/or theology.  

That passage has nothing to do with slavery.  It is an allegory to remain faithful to God because you don't know when Christ will return.  The allegory refers to masters and servants because in the first century AD, pretty much everyone, even freedmen, was in a master/servant relationship.  Here is what the New Testament has to say about slavery.

"Slaves, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ; not by way of eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart.  With good will render service, as to the Lord, and not to men, knowing that whatever good thing each one does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether slave or free.  And, masters, do the same things to them, and give up threatening, knowing that both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no partiality with Him."

-Ephesians 6:5-9.   

Christianity is all about good things happening to you is because God favored you and if bad things happen to you God might be punishing you (see hurricanes for gay marriage, etc.)

Slaves were told to obey their masters in the NT. Slavery wasn't condemned as being a sin in the NT. One of the easiest moral questions in the world. Where in the NT does it say that slaves were slaves because of the evils of man?

God could just be like "Yo, slavery is a sin", easy peazy. Instead it took 1700-1800 years for people to start figuring that one out.

How do you think that came to be? Slaves were told to obey their masters (even the cruel ones) for 1700/1800 years. What changed to make slavery a bad thing?

1. Incorrect.  I've lost count of how many times my pastor back home preaches about how the Christian's path is often one of persecution in this world, and reward in the next.  
2. Paul's command is that regardless of your station in life, love thy neighbor.  And his command is equally on the master to love the slave like a brother.  Eventually people figured out that if you truly loved your slave like a brother, you would not make him a slave.  
3. It seems easy in hindsight.  At the time of Paul's letters, slavery had existed since the dawn of civilization.  Abolishing slavery was as absurd as abolishing taxes or the army.  

Christians still have to defend God ordering the Canaanites to be wiped out but keeping the young virgin girls.

There was once serious thought about throwing out the entire Old Testament because of things like that.  Ultimately, the fact that it had prophecies about Jesus is what saved it.  But many Christian theologians have recognized that such stories in the Old Testament are not compatible with Christ's message and how Christians today are supposed to live.  

Personally, I don't believe in the infallibility of any text, so my personal answer is that God gave no such command. 

You just don't understand. Anything God does is good, even the most heinous acts like authorizing torture, instigating wars, killing babies, and committing mass murder.

Religious people say a lot of things. That's how religion works.

If there was a literal Adam and Eve, oh yeah, the Bible says that, the Bible is right.
If there wasn't a literal Adam & Eve, oh yeah, the Bible says that, the Bible is right.

There's no falsifiability. Whatever the answer is (even if it's totally black and white contradictory things being discussed), their book is right.

Religious people do think that good things happening to them is because they're being blessed by God (that's why they praise God when they find their car keys) and if bad things are happening, maybe they're being tested, or God is punishing them (see hurricanes for gay marriage, etc.). It also says that they'll be persecuted and don't worry God loves you more.

There's no falsifiability. It actually has a lot of cult tactics.

The Abrahamic holy books are filled with "BELIEVE THIS or else!, "Be like a child/sheep, etc.", "Be gullible/brainwashed" (See Abraham, Doubting Thomas, etc., etc., etc., etc.)

... and slaves are to obey their masters, even the harsh/cruel ones.

When you say both things, it's easy to cherry-pick.

Why not make him a slave? What happened to make slavery bad? What was the reason we view slavery as a bad thing? You can still keep slaves, just treat them well.

Murder existed since the dawn of civilization, that didn't stop murder from being a sin. Usury existed since the dawn of civilization, that didn't stop them from viewing usury as a sin at the time. God seems quite base about such things. Oh, slavery can't be a sin, gotta keep the $$$ flow going, you know. Just try to treat your slaves well.