Kosh

Was just watching "Bible Secrets" on THC.
According to Josephus (remember, a Jewish
historian from late first century), the Jews
at Masada chose to commit suicide, rather than
be taken as slaves by the Romans. If the slavery
of the times was so mild, why take this action?

bd-from-kg

Haran:

Your comments about slavery are breathtaking in their stubborn wrong-headedness.

You say:

You may have a point. “Racist” slavery is based on the factual proposition that certain races are inferior to others and the moral principle that it is permissible for superior races to enslave inferior ones. Now I reject both the factual proposition and the moral principle, but it is arguably not self-evident that either of these is false. Roman slavery, on the other hand, was based on the idea that the masters and slaves were essentially equal except for the accident of history that the former had gained the upper hand (for the moment) over the latter. The moral “principle” underlying it was simply “might makes right”. This principle is self-evidently false and contemptible.

Now, the Old Testament is hardly noted for its factual accuracy: it states that bats are birds and that rabbits chew their cud, among many other absurdities. At best, it must be admitted that it shows no interest in disabusing humans of any false notions about the physical nature of things. So it would perhaps be understandable if it merely failed to inform us that it is false that some races are inferior to others, just as it fails to inform us that the sky is not really a “firmament” resting on “foundations”, or that the sun cannot really stand still in the sky for a few hours because it’s not really moving across the sky in the first place. But it is incomprehensible that the Word of God, in which He vouchsafes to us the most important, basic truths of morality, should fail to mention that “might makes right” is not a valid moral principle, or that the system of slavery which was squarely based on it was a moral atrocity.

So your point is?

Now let’s move on to another of your statements about slavery and the Bible:

It’s tiresome to have to repeat something that has already been quoted, but perhaps you’re getting forgetful. So let’s review:

Now first, note the racism implicit in the two passages. Heathen bondsmen are a permanent possession, but Hebrew menservants are free to go after six years. Second, note the choice that is offered to the manservant who has the misfortune to love his wife and family. If he wishes to leave, he must abandon them to the tender mercies of his master; if he doesn’t want to abandon his family, he gets his ear drilled and becomes a slave for life. This is God’s law; Yahweh’s version of “family values”. So far as I know it had no parallel in Greek or Roman practice.

And while we’re looking at this passage, let’s take a peek at what follows right after:

In other words, this passage sanctions selling one’s own daughter for the explicit purpose of making her a sex slave. Lovely. (Oh, yes she gets to be called a “wife”, in a society where a man might have six wives. Or six hundred. I’m sure this made all the difference to the girl.)

Now it’s true that there are some “if’s” in there, but they seem to be the kinds of “if’s” found in all laws E.g., if Smith contracts to buy a car from you tomorrow for $1000, he’s legally obligated to show up tomorrow with the $1000 as agreed. In other words, “if’s” don’t always (or even usually) indicate disapproval of the activity in question. Where’s the implicit disapproval of slavery here? In what sense can these passages be interpreted as a concessions as opposed to simple authorizations to act in the specified ways? Where are the “at least” parts? I’m baffled.

And then there’s this:

As many commentaries explain, the last bit means that the master shall not be punished because the slave is his property. In other words, an action that would certainly be punishable as murder if the victim were anyone else merits no punishment at all if the victim was one’s slave.

Now you say of Roman slavery that:

But we’re not talking about Roman slavery here; we’re talking about slavery as practiced by the ancient Hebrews. Do you seriously believe that any sane man would voluntarily become a slave in a society with laws like this governing slavery? Would you? And what is one to think of a God who would bequeath such grotesquely inhuman laws to his “chosen” people?

[ February 04, 2002: Message edited by: bd-from-kg ]</p>

Vorkosigan

I believe it is important to realize these differences, between the kind of slavery conjured up in our minds today upon its mention and the slavery of more ancient times, before we even approach how the Bible handles the issue.

Your discussion of slavery in ancient times is incorrect. For a tiny minority of slaves, those house slaves in powerful Roman households, life was acceptable. For all other slaves, such as those in the fields, or those on construction gangs, or in mines, or who were hunters and so forth, life was a living hell and life expectancies were short.

Michael

excreationist

Actually, if you look at the OT, it looks like racism is clearly involved. I'm talking about what the Bible actually says, not what some spin doctor says.
It seems that only foreigners can be slaves - the Hebrews can become servants though they have to work for you (like a contract) but for a maximum of seven years (usually).

<a href="http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=EXOD+21:2-11&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=off&showxre f=on" target="_blank">Exodus 21:2-11</a>:
<a href="http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=LEV+25:39-55&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=off&showxre f=on" target="_blank">Leviticus 25:39-55</a>:
<a href="http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=DEUT+24:7&language=english&version=N IV&showfn=off" target="_blank">Deuteronomy 24:7</a>:
So it is pretty clear that racism is involved.

So the key point is to notice that sometimes they are talking about slaves, and sometimes they use the word servant.

<a href="http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=EXOD+21:20-21,26-27&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=off" target="_blank">Exodus 21:20-21,26-27</a>:
So they are clearly different things, and Hebrews aren't allowed to be slaves - only servants. Foreigners might be able to be treated as servants though (but this is never suggested).

Exodus 20:10 and Exodus 20:17 don't say that slaves have to rest on the Sabbath though... but I guess it implies it since it says that animals and aliens within your gates have to.

These are some words from God:
<a href="http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=DEUT+20:10-18&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=off" target="_blank">Deuteronomy 20:10-18</a>:
So here God is *commanding* them to take slaves. There is a cross-reference with <a href="http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=GEN+9:25&language=english&version=NI V&showfn=off&showxref=on" target="_blank">Genesis 9:25</a> where Ham's descendants are cursed:
But the Bible doesn't say that only Ham's descendants can be taken as slaves - they can come from any nation.

bd-from-kg

excreationist:

It appears that you have been misled by the deliberate softening of the original Hebrew text by the KJV translators (and many others who followed their example). Compare, for example, the New Revised Standard Version (as used in the New Oxford Annotated Bible). In Exodus 21, the words translated as “servant”, “manservant”, etc. in the KJV are rendered properly as “slave”, “male slave”, etc. The NOAB describes Ex. 21:7-11 as defining “the rights of a female slave or concubine”.

Leviticus 25 appears to have been translated correctly: an Israelite could not sell himself into slavery. This appears to contradict Exodus. Perhaps a better Biblical scholar can explain the discrepancy.

But it’s a good rule of thumb, if you’re using the KJV, to assume that a word like “servant” is really referring to a slave; this is the case about 95% of the time. Better yet, use a more honest translation.

Nevertheless, there is a clear difference in the treatment of Hebrews and foreigners with respect to slavery; foreigners are treated more harshly in many respects, both in the conditions under which they may be made slaves and in the their rights as slaves. Basically, any foreigner can be made a slave under any conditions if one is in a position to enslave him, and foreign slaves don’t have any rights beyond the right not to be killed on the spot. Hebrews can only become slaves voluntarily, they normally go free eventually [at least the males], and in the meantime they must be treated with some respect and consideration. This is obviously racist. Of course the very concept of “racism” didn’t exist at that time; practically everyone was a racist through and through without giving it a second thought. Too bad God neglected to introduce the concept to the Hebrews. In fact, it’s curious that the OT God’s concepts of justice and morality coincided so exactly with those current in Middle Eastern societies at the time.

[ February 05, 2002: Message edited by: bd-from-kg ]</p>

excreationist

bd-from-kg:
Yeah, "servant" isn't a very good translation... maybe it could be translated as "well-treated temporary slave" to distinguish it from ordinary slaves.

"Now, the Old Testament is hardly noted for its factual accuracy"

I thought you were a Christian... maybe you are an extremely liberal Christian...

Bob K

Pug:

Part 1

Bob K quote: Pug quote: Nice to see you know how to backpedal when you sense you need to.

I don’t need more evidence than to read one stupid sentence to make a determination when someone is acting as an arrogant punk, thank you.

Bob K quote: Pug quote: Begged/unanswered question: What “is normally accepted as a basis for morality amongst people who discuss such issues”?

Bob K quote: Pug quote: Begged/unanswered question #1: What ought we to be valuing?

Begged/unanswered question #2: Is S-&gt;PS-&gt;SS the best strategy for efficiently reaching our goals?

Bob K quote: Pug quote: Your paraphrase of S-&gt;PS-&gt;SS is correct as edited.

Pug quote: Begged/unanswered question: What moral framework should we use?

S-&gt;PS-&gt;SS provides values/priorities:

PS values = (A) Achieve personal desires; (B) Maximize personal happiness; (C) Disregard the desires and happiness of other people.

SS values = (A) Achieve personal desires; (B) Maximize personal happiness; (C) Consider the desires and happiness of other people by cooperating with them to negotiate and to achieve common desires.

Notice that the only difference between PS and SS is the SS consideration of the desires and feelings of other people resulting from the recognition of the individual’s need for other people.

Both PS and SS recognize the importance of the S desires/needs of the individual to achieve his desires and to maximize his happiness.

Any system of morality must recognize the desires/needs of the individual to achieve many if not most if not all of his desires and to maximize his happiness; otherwise, dictatorship/slavery moralities will suffice as universal moralities with their resulting socialistic moral codes/values, and socialistic governments ought to keep everyone fat and happy.

Pug quote: Begged/unanswered question: What morality can “tell us what things to value and what should be the goal we are aiming for – once we have picked a goal or purpose”?

You have not provided any values by which an individual can or ought to make a decision, values which limit the individual’s choices.

I.e., you have not provided a morality.

Begged/unanswered question: Is there a universal morality which can answer all moral questions?

Begged/unanswered question: If there is no universal morality which works for all people, then are we free to create our own morality?

Begged/unanswered question: What is a morality?

Pug quote: Begged/unanswered question: What morality would provide a framework for making moral decisions?

Again, although you stated you intended to provide examples you have not proposed any value systems that could be a basis for a morality to use for making moral decisions concerning any of these situations.

Pug quote: Begged/unanswered question: When “we don’t need to cooperate with anyone else” what are the “better strategies to pick in which to maximize the efficiency of [our] ends”?

Bob K

Pug:

Part 2

S-&gt;PS-&gt;SS is a basis for a morality.

If you do not know how to get someplace, even though you want to get there, you most likely won’t get there.

What you need is a basis for figuring out how to get there.

S-&gt;PS-&gt;SS is not only a strategy but also a fundamental set of values/goals.

You have overlooked obvious fundamental personal goals/values in S-&gt;PS-&gt;SS.

Those fundamental personal goals/values are: 1. achieve many of not most if not all of one’s desires; 2. maximize one’s happiness. These values are present in both PS and SS.

These are the fundamental concepts and principles of any motivational system.

Why?

The mind is an individual’s personal system of desires, fears and priorities.

Feelings are reactions to realizations of desires/fears/priorities (D/F/Ps).

Feelings develop in a sequence of Desire/Realization/Feeling (the D/R/F sequence):

1. Desire: _____ (?) [Person/Thing/Event Wanted.]

2. Realization: _____ (?) [Person/Thing/Event Achieved/Not Achieved.]

3. Feeling: _____ (?) [Reaction to the Realization of the Desire.]

Thus, the bridge between an individual’s mind [his personal system of desires/fears/priorities] and his feelings [his reactions to his realizations of his desires/fears/priorities] is the D/R/F sequence.

Happiness is a feeling which is an emotion which is a positive reaction to a positive realization of a desire/fear/priority.

Thus, achieving desires and experiencing feelings of happiness are interconnected. No desires, no feelings. No achievement of desires, no feelings of happiness.

Where selfishness is seeking to achieve one’s desires and to maximize one’s feelings, personal selfishness is seeking to achieve one’s desires and to maximize one’s happiness without regard for the desires and happiness of other people, and social selfishness is seeking to achieve many if not most if not all of one’s desires and to maximize one’s happiness by considering the desires and happiness of other people by cooperating with those other people to negotiate and achieve common desires.

In PS, the goals/values are 1.achieving one’s desires, 2. maximizing one’s happiness, and 3. refusing to consider other desires and happiness of other people.

Thus, in PS, there is a specific goal/value of not considering the desires and happiness of other people.

In SS, the goals/values are 1. achieving one’s desires, 2. maximizing one’s happiness, 3. considering the desires and happiness of other people by cooperating with them to help them achieve their desires and maximize their happiness by negotiating and achieving common desires and thereby helping yourself achieve your desires and maximize your happiness.

Thus, in SS, there is a specific goal/value of considering the desires and happiness of other people.

Inherent in SS is the ability to empathize with other people, to know and feel and understand their desires and feelings, because you know and understand your own desires and feelings and know that they are similar to the desires and feelings of other people.

Desires, fears and priorities (D/F/Ps) are the basic motivating/causative factors of all people.

We start with unlearned desires which are physiological such as the desires to survive, eat, drink water/liquids, eliminate wastes, obtain shelter from excessive heat or cold, find companionship, sex, reproduction, etc., and we learn which choices achieve/do not achieve our unlearned/physiological desires and we develop learned or psychological desires, of which the content which can be quite different among people. What you desire to do for recreation is not necessarily the same as what I desire to do for recreation, and there is no requirement that we should both desire the same recreational activities and values.

Thus, we all have desires, fears and priorities, we all have physiological/unlearned D/F/Ps which are similar if not identical, and through experience we develop psychological/learned D/F/Ps which are most often dissimilar and rarely similar.

Where S is initially physiological/unlearned, through experience an individual develops the psychological/learned D/F/Ps which are unique and initially PS but which can become SS when the individual experiences a desire for the cooperation of other people for which he must be cooperative with those other people in negotiating and achieving common desires.

Thus, where we have our initial physiological/unlearned desires, which are similar, we develop psychological/learned desires which are dissimilar.

Any morality must account for both the unlearned D/F/Ps and the learned D/F/Ps of the individuals who are expected to follow the moral code.

By S-&gt;PS-&gt;SS we travel thus: (1) S/Unlearned D/F/Ps -&gt;(2) PS/Learned Personal D/F/Ps -&gt;(3) SS/Learned Social D/F/Ps.

Where S-&gt;PS-&gt;SS is the underlying process/sequence, for most normal people, sociopaths and psychopaths excepted, through experience we develop the learned desires which become our personal and social values and the bases for our morality/moral code, which eventually become the bases for our form of government.

Is there a universal moral code other than S-&gt;PS-&gt;SS the would enable us all to make the same decisions concerning solving the problem of deciding which soccer team to play for or the problem of deciding whether or not to continue or otherwise implement the death penalty, or problems making any decisions in general?

Moral decisions are thus be made in consideration of the value of the desires and happiness of other people as well as the value of your own desires and happiness.

In the classic case wherein you find your own mother [who has proven that she loves you and thereby given you reason to love her] is a Nazi who intends to kill and enslave the Jews who are your fellow countrymen and innocent of any intent to harm you or your mother, and you have to either kill her to save them or let them suffer and die to save her, if your value with the highest priority is the consideration of the desires and feelings of other people, and because many people would suffer and die if she were to be allowed by you to live you find value in preventing their suffering and death, then that value would prompt you to kill your own mother. But if your value with the highest priority is to protect your mother, then you would not kill her. All of this fits under S-&gt;PS-&gt;SS.

As for joining a soccer team, by PS you might value $$ and thereby choose the team which offers the most $$; but by SS you might value the desires and feelings of your family, friends, potential teammates, friends who may be on one of the teams, the fans you might like to please, etc., you might choose to disregard $$.

Let’s take a contemporary example: Drew Bledsoe was not chosen to start in the Super Bowl for the New England Patriots because Tom Brady was determined to be healthy and did in fact lead the team to the playoffs, demonstrating not only athletic ability but also leadership ability. Tom B. did a great job in helping the Pats win the Super Bowl, as evidenced by the fact that he was voted Most Valuable Player (MVP). If he stays with the Patriots Drew B. would have to compete for the starting QB job but otherwise could only count on being a backup QB. How by S-&gt;PS-&gt;SS could Drew B. make a decision concerning staying with or leaving the Patriots?

By PS, with the PS values of 1. achieving one’s desires, 2. maximizing one’s happiness, and 3. disregarding the desires and feelings of other people, Drew B. would consider only his desires and feelings, not those of his family, his teammates, or his fans.

What are his values? What life experiences prompted him to develop learned personal D/F/Ps which he could use to make a decision?

By SS, with the SS values of 1. achieving one’s desires, 2. maximizing one’s happiness, and 3. considering the desires and feelings of other people, Drew B. would consider his desires and feelings and the desires and feelings of other people including his family, his friends, his teammates, and his fans. He has shown that he can be a gentleman and a team player by his refusal to create a QB controversy and thus supporting the decision of the coaching staff, particularly Coach Belichick. There is a possibility that he might choose to be a backup QB for the sake of his fans [how much sheer joy he would prompt in Patriots fans if he, as a future Hall-of-Famer, could choose to compete for the starting QB position but otherwise accept the coaches’ decision and be a backup QB], and his teammates. He might choose to stay in New England because of his family. But he might also consider not only the desires and feelings of future teammates he could help by the fact that he is one of the premier QB’s in the NFL and could easily be a starter with many NFL teams but also the desires and feelings of future fans who would benefit from his skills.

What values should Drew B. value?

How should Drew B. consider the desires and feelings of other people as well as his own desires and feelings?

I am not aware that there is an overriding value system external to Drew B. that could show him how to make this decision beyond S-&gt;PS-&gt;SS.

Drew B. would have to decide for himself what are his desires and how achieving them would affect his feelings, and derive from his deliberations his own set of desires/fears/priorities which would be the values he would use for making his decision.

There is no decision he could make that could be 100% immoral, and any decision is more than likely to be judged moral, and the only complaints would most likely come only from family members who might not want to leave New England, for I suspect that most fans and Patriot teammates and coaches would understand his desire to play and be a starter should he choose to leave.

Thus, where there are no clear values that would determine the difference between a moral and an immoral decision, Drew B. is free to determine for himself what his priorities are and therefore his values.

Thus, in general, where an individual does not intend to injure another except in defense of himself and others, he is free to set for himself the values that he will use in making decisions and solving problems in general and for making decisions and solving moral problems in particular.

Q: What is the meaning of life?

A: What you make of it!

[ February 06, 2002: Message edited by: Bob K ]</p>

Bob K

Haran:

Part 1

I have found that theists often respond to obvious truths of biblical contradictions, fictions and inerrancy by denying/evading/obfuscating/attacking.

Let’s see if Haran has used the typical tactics of deny/evade/obfuscate/attack.

Haran Quote: The “only reason”?

What makes you think I need help in the wording of my post?

Obfuscation: What post are you referring to?

Haran Quote: Evasion: What in this paragraph refers to the wording of my original post?

When I observe and recognize language which I define as arrogance coming from what in my experience has been a punk, someone who tries to control people who do not want to be controlled, especially when they have presented clear evidence contrary to the punk’s line of thought, then I so state my observations and recognitions.

Pug’s language is that of an arrogant punk, a graduate of the Joint Academy of Confused Knowledge, Obfuscation, and Fraudulent Facts.

Haran Quote: Obfuscation: The Topic deals with the question of whether or not the Xn Babel (term Babel is deliberately used derogatorily as an expression of my contempt for the contradictions, fictions, etc. contained within it) sanctions slavery, obviously, slavery from ancient times as well as contemporary times, so why are we forced to consider the possibility that because racism was present recent US history (if one wants to agree that people/things/events circa 1865 constitute ‘recent US history’) we cannot think rationally about slavery being sanctioned in the Babel?

Fact: Slavery = Slavery = Buying/owning/controlling/selling human beings who are to serve their owners/masters and therefore are without liberty/freedom to do as they please.

The American Heritage Dictionary: I think most normal people would agree that slavery as the term is commonly used is at least defined as #1 from the above dictionary.

Haran Quote: Evasion/obfuscation: Here we have the injunction to look at articles, definitions and comments, etc., which are supposedly to uplift our understanding but which only serve to obfuscate and evade the issue.

We are essentially told we do not know how to define the terms used in the Babel and that we should be assured that once we learn the correct definitions we will see that all is well and that the issue at hand is not an issue after all.

After all, what are slaves? It depends upon your definition ...

But the problem is that all slaves have one common problem and therefore one common characteristic: They are owned by someone else, have to work for/serve that someone else regardless of what they want, and are not completely free to enjoy the rights nonslaves in general enjoy. Could a slave while still a slave ever become Emperor of Rome?

Slaves are slaves, and doing a Clinton to split hairs/parse words is nonsense and clear evasion/obfuscation.

Haran Quote: Your beliefs do not fit reality.

The Babel does indeed support slavery; moreover, it does not outlaw slavery.

Haran Quote: If Haran had read my original Topic Post he should have seen this: And then Haran should have seen this question/comment: In Matt. 5:17-19 we have JC claiming that he did not intend to change the Mosaic law but in Matt. 19:7-8 we have JC actually changing not the law but the punishment for following the law and thereby the spirit of the law and, ultimately, thereby changing the law itself. Who in his right mind would divorce his wife after JC informed the masses that those who divorce their wives commit adultery? And even though Moses gave the law sanctioning divorce!?!

I predict that had I not made this prediction that Haran would have replied with a Reply which was a denial that JC did in fact attempt to change the Mosaic law, but this is typical of theistic deny/evade/obfuscate/attack responses to any possible Bablical confusions that would prompt normal people to reject it as a source of theological reality.

Fact: In Matt. 19:7-8 JC destroys the law [the Mosaic law in the Pentateuch] and thus hypocritically contradicts himself from what he is alleged to have said in Matt: 5-17-19.

[ February 06, 2002: Message edited by: Bob K ]</p>

Bob K

Haran:

Part 2

Haran Quote: Evasion/Obfuscation: Paul elsewhere, as Repliers have shown, commanded slaves to obey their masters.

Therefore, this entire quote is specific to one individual slave Paul happened to like and does not reflect Paul’s general attitude towards slaves.

This quote is therefore an evasion of Paul’s general attitude towards slaves and an obfuscation away from the general harsh/hard attitude towards a softer attitude when in fact the general attitude is the prevailing and therefore more important attitude.

Haran Quotes Himself: Evasion/obfuscation: S-&gt;PS-&gt;SS can be put into words via T. Jefferson’s :The essence of the law is that no man should [be allowed to] injure another [innocent man]; all the rest [of the law] is commentary.”

An innocent man is an individual who does not intend to injure other innocent people, defined as people who do not intend to injure him. A criminal intend to injure an innocent person, therefore innocent people are entitled to defend themselves and if doing so requires injuring the criminal then that is acceptable as self-defense/common defense.

S-&gt;PS-&gt;SS thus functions as a morality for theists, atheists and agnostics.

I.e., all individuals who are innocent/do not intend to injure those people who do not intend to injure them have the same moral basis of S-&gt;PS-&gt;SS, and among the categories of innocent individuals are included theists, atheists and agnostics.

S-&gt;PS-&gt;SS outlaws slavery because of the fact that slaves are injured by being denied fundamental rights to freedom/liberty and under the observation that the essence of the law is that no man should injure another, slaves should be freed.

This moral value derives nothing from gods, and since Xnity does not outlaw slavery, this moral value does not come from Xnity, but, instead, from the common moral basis of all innocent people: S-&gt;PS-&gt;SS.

Haran Comments on Reactions to his Quote: Denial: Haran tries to deny that defining “nearly every word” in his quote is necessary. He does not give reasons why we are to accept his complaint. He overlooks the fact that a lack of commonly-agreed upon definitions is regularly a cause of confusions and resulting problems in discussions and debates.

Denial: Haran tries to claim that “subjective” as in “subjective atheistic morals” is not itself polemic and therefore inflammatory, as if Haran is as pure as the wind-driven snow.

Evasion: Haran tries to deflect criticism of his inflammatory “subjective atheistic morals” by pointing to “the name-calling and disagreement on exactly what these morals may be.”

Not-nice try. No prize.

Haran Quote: Denial: Haran is indirectly claiming that since atheist/agnostic morals are subjective that there exist objective morals, and that those objective morals are god-morals.

Denial: Haran is denying the fundamental question concerning religion: Do gods exist?

Denial: Haran is denying the fact that no one has conclusively proven beyond a doubt by (A) physical evidence, (B) eyewitness reports from credible eyewitnesses and corroborated by credible corroborators, and (C) logical arguments consisting of verifiable/falsifiable/verified premises which lead to relevant conclusions which are true only if the premises are verified that gods exist when he indirectly claims that objective morals exist in the form of edicts from the gods.

For any person/thing/event to be objective it has to be observable either directly or indirectly by its effects on observable people/things/events.

No observations, no objectivity.

No observations of gods, no gods allowed, no claims of objective god-edicts allowed.

It is my observation that theists, who are in fact subjective, as evidenced by their belief in the existence of proof of the existence of gods when in fact there is no proof of the existence of gods, routinely attack atheist/agnostics as being subjective when in fact theists are certainly far more subjective than atheists/agnostics.

Considering theists vs. atheist/agnostics, who believes in the existence of unobserved unobservables?

And why?

In a previous Topic, I presented the views of an individual who observed that theists use emotional criteria for making decisions where atheists and agnostics use rational criteria for making decisions: To repeat: So, who is more subjective—theists, or atheists/agnostics? Who is more rational?

Haran Quote: To repeat: Thus, atheists and agnostics not only have morals/values but their morals/values are often higher than Xns.

Haran Quote: Begged Question: What is the “more” in the above quote?

Haran Quote: Evasion/Obfuscation: Haran is assuming that his claim that atheists, and, I assume, agnostics, have no morals/are not moral because they do not believe in the existence of an afterlife is true and then he asserts in his question/comment that atheists cannot decry Xnity/religion because Xnity/religion has a moral base whereas, according to Haran, atheists/agnostics have no moral base.

S-&gt;PS-&gt;SS describes a fundamental fact: That people are born initially selfish and therefore PS but, through experience, become SS. [Exceptions: Sociopaths and psychopaths.]

S-&gt;PS-&gt;SS underlies any form of realization that if one does not want to be injured by other people then he ought not to injure other innocent people, or. in the positive form, if one wants other people to do good deeds for him he ought to do good deeds for other people. [Exception: Defense of self and others vs. criminals, who by definition intend to injure innocent people.]

S-&gt;PS-&gt;SS underlies and therefore is the basis for the Golden Rule as found in Confucianism as well as in Xnity

S-&gt;PS-&gt;SS underlies and is therefore the basis for T. Jefferson’s “The essence of the law is that no man should [be allowed to] injure another [man]; all the rest [of the law] is commentary.”

S-&gt;PS-&gt;SS is true for atheists/agnostics as well as theists.

S-&gt;PS-&gt;SS is therefore a fundamental observation of human nature that is predictable: People will find that to achieve most of their desires and to maximize their happiness they need the ready, willing and able cooperation of other people for which they must be ready, willing and able to cooperate with those other people to negotiate and to achieve common desires.

To be clear: Any form of working to cooperate with other people to negotiate and to achieve common desires is a form of S-&gt;PS-&gt;SS.

SS comes from PS, and PS comes from S.

No gods necessary, no gods needed.

The morality of S-&gt;PS-&gt;SS comes from the fact that as an individual realizes to achieve most if not all of his desires and to maximize his happiness he needs the ready, willing and able cooperation of other people to negotiate and to achieve common desires he empathizes with other people and will ultimately abhor slavery and thus being ready, willing and able to cooperate to negotiate and to achieve the common desire to free slaves/abolish slavery.

This process can occur in atheists/agnostics as well as theists.

No gods necessary, no gods needed.

Begged Question: Where in the Xn Babel is slavery in general outlawed?

I and other Repliers have shown passages wherein slavery is recognized and thereby sanctioned [it was not outlawed]; if an Xn apologist wants to deny the claim that slavery in general [defined as the ownership of humans beings with the the legal requirement that those slaves serve their owners] then he who asserts must prove and therefore he must offer the passages which clearly and obviously outlaw slavery.

To repeat in summary: [ February 06, 2002: Message edited by: Bob K ]</p>