NOGO

Just a few comments on the ten commandments

Notice how irrelevant the first three are to atheists. Atheists are probably the only people who will get 100% observance rating or will come very close.

Number 4 is the opposite. Atheists will get zero on this one. This was probably a good commandment for slaves although a better one would have been thou shalt not enslave.

Number 5 is the only commandment without a no or not in it.

The 10th commandment obviously is not addressed to women so that they can covet their neighbour's husband.

pug846

Bob K said:

Bob K, in the future, please don’t speak for what is the basis for “atheists and agnostics.” Many of us don’t subscribe to your rather odd and very limited morality. Your morality can’t answer most of the day-to-day basic moral questions we all come across. If you would like to defend it in the moral foundations forum, please feel free to.

Similarly, Haran, please do reveal this “subjective atheistic morality” that all of us atheists apparently subscribe too and further, that we can’t claim slavery is wrong. If you would like to argue for that unsubstantiated claim, please feel free too. I wasn’t sure what your point was in the first place in mentioning that anyway. Whether an atheist is able to claim that slavery is wrong is beside the point in whether you are able to claim it.

Kosh

No problem. We're all just waiting for the
second coming, so we've got like, forever.

Bob K

Pug:

You quoted me thus: Then you wrote the following: Who are you to be telling me what to do/not do?

I see you are a student, therefore a young person without the experience that usually tempers opinions and provides wisdom for understanding reality.

You are obviously an arrogant punk who thinks he can speak on behalf of others who have read this thread including those who have read and agreed with S->PS->SS including Cowboy X who has posted it on his own forum.

You should learn to read carefully before you hit the “Reply” button.

Note the exact words: “Here is the basis of AN human morality ... for atheists and agnostics.”

Question: (A) Am I asserting “Here is the basis of AN human morality ... for atheists and agnostics” or (B) am I proposing “Here is the basis of AN human morality ... for atheists and agnostics”?

Choose A or B, if you can.

You have claimed that S->PS->SS is a “rather odd and limited morality” that “can’t answer most of the day-to-day basic moral questions we all come across.”

Define operationally “odd.”

Define operationally “limited.”

Define operationally “day-to-day basic moral questions we all come across.”

Provide examples of the “day-to-day basic moral questions we all come across.”

Do not “answer” or “reply” by means of statements such as “Everyone knows what is meant by these terms” or some similar evasion or obfuscation that does not define the terms operationally or provide the examples requested.

Prove that S->PS->SS cannot provide a moral basis for “day-to-day basic moral questions we all come across.”

Again, do not “answer” by means of statements such as “Everyone knows what I mean” or some similar evasion or obfuscation.

Then provide a moral basis atheists and agnostics can live by to answer the “day-to-day basic moral questions we all come across.”

Again, do not “answer” by means of statements such as “Everyone knows what I mean” or some similar evasion or obfuscation.

Then explain how a quote that appears important to you which you have placed upon your home page is/is not contradicted by your demand that I not (A) assert “Here is the basis of AN human morality ... for atheists and agnostics” or (B) propose “Here is the basis of AN human morality ... for atheists and agnostics”

And before you assume that I am a theist, as others have, consult my website:

www. bobkwebsite.com

Open your eyes.

[ January 30, 2002: Message edited by: Bob K ]</p>

pug846

Bob said:

Gee – thanks. I guess that all that experience you have didn’t teach you not to jump…nay leap to hasty generalizations and conclusions? I didn’t claim that your description of morality wouldn’t be held by anyone, only that many wouldn’t hold it.

Odd - Deviating from what is ordinary, usual, or expected; strange or peculiar: an odd name; odd behavior.

In this case, I believe your description of morality is deviating from what is normally accepted as a basis for morality amongst people who discuss such issues.

Limited - To confine or restrict within a boundary or bounds

Your basis for morality doesn’t tell us what we ought to be valuing, only a strategy to reach our most efficiently reach our goals.

To summarize what you have given us as a basis for a morality and please feel free to correct me if I am wrong: In order to see our goals and values realized, it is most efficient to corporate with members of society. As an observable scientific fact, we generally all start off thinking of no one but ourselves, but eventually realize that when we corporate with our neighbors, etc. we are better able to serve or needs. I believe this could be boiled down to corporate with people. I won’t pick apart the terminology since it is my own, but only the general idea.

You haven’t provided us with a morality here, only a strategy for a reaching our values once we already have a moral framework. Clearly, once I have a set of goals, often times, cooperating with people will be the best strategy for reaching that goal. You haven’t given us a basis to pick one goal or another.

Examples that make my point more clear: You can join one of four different soccer teams. Lets say each soccer team “stands” for something different. Your basis for morality wouldn’t allow us to decipher who we should cooperate with – only that once on the team, it would probably be in our interests to cooperate. A morality should tell us what things to value and what should be the goal we are aiming for – once we have picked a goal or purpose, at that point you can certainly employ strategies that will maximize the efficiency in reaching the goal. In the case of the soccer teams, once on a team, then you ought to play as a team, if your goal is to win.

Should I be for the death penalty or against it? Which allows me to cooperate better with society? Which society? Which group? Who the hell should I cooperate with? What happens when I need to choose a side and can only cooperate with one group? Your basis for morality doesn’t give us answers for any of these situations.
To summarize, you’ve given us a strategy for maximizing our values once they are chosen, but haven’t given us a “basis for morality” that will allow me to know what to do with my life. Further, and more importantly, often times we don’t need to cooperate with anyone else and there are better strategies to pick in which to maximize the efficiency of your ends.

I actually never assumed you were a theist. I could care less.

I initially read your initial statement in the post in question as this is THE basis for…I apologize for having operating under that misunderstanding. Either way, my age or my experience isn’t an issue here.

Haran

Heleilu, I doubt that BobK was referring to the Bible as the "gate of God". I rather believe that it was a derogatory name for the Bible making use of an idea that most common folk would associate with the word Babel (which can mean the same as babble), that is, incoherent speech. Please correct me if I'm wrong, Bob...

Actually, I'm rather thick-skinned so to speak, but others aren't. Making fun of a person's heartfelt beliefs does not promote rational discussion. In many cases it will lead to a spat from which neither side learns anything except how to annoy the other.

P.S. - For others, it could be as late as Sat. or Sun. before I can respond substantively to the above posts in any detail.

Thanks,
Haran

[ January 30, 2002: Message edited by: Haran ]</p>

Haran

Thanks for your patience...

Firstly, I want to begin by saying that the only reason that I posted in the first place was to try and help BobK think about the wording of his post.

Polemics frustrate rational communication by introducing emotion. BobK again injected emotion later against pug846 by calling him an "arrogant punk" among other things. I have to ask if BobK wants a rational discussion of issues or if he wants a fight. I appreciate pug846's attitude in not responding in kind. This derives from experience and understanding, not necessarily from age.

Secondly, often in polemical posts, our modern social values are projected onto people and situations of the past where they do not belong. For instance, when we think of slavery, we consciously or unconsciously think of "Black slavery" of the recent past and project this situation further into the past. Racist "Black slavery" seems to have been a totally different "animal" than the slavery of times further in the past, if we are to judge by ancient texts. We, today, are also not far removed in time from the abolition of slavery, so the evils of it are still very much on our modern minds so that we are sensitive to the mere mention of it. Polemical posts take advantage of this relatively recent aversion and sensitivity to slavery (among other subjects), consciously or unconsciously, to denigrate the Bible and Christianity.

Since I realize that people are probably going to take issue with my slavery comments above, let me quote some information from sources more reputable than myself:

Yet, this even more reprehensible, racist slavery of the "antebellum United States South" is exactly the image conjured up by a thread like this one.

(If anyone is dissatisfied with the above source, or my own information, there is a long bibliography at the end of the above dictionary's Slavery entry which lists recent scholarly works from all sides of the slavery issue.)

Here is a little more on from the same source:
Indeed, ancient texts such as the NT, Eusebius, Hegesippus, and Justin Martyr mention a slavery that was quite different from our modern ideas:

It is even said that some who could not financially support themselves or their families actually volunteered to become slaves to better their lives.

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.

Thirdly, on to the Biblical handling of slavery which is the ultimate issue. As stated above, I can understand how a person can look at the Bible and believe that it condones slavery by simply allowing it or only making mild statements against it. However, I do not believe that the Bible supports slavery. And, on a personal level, I believe the Bible no more condones slavery than a parent necessarily condones pre-marital sex by informing a child of the facts and preparing them for encounters with a condom!

As a matter of fact, most, if not all, of the places in the Bible which mention slavery do so with if's. The wordings seem mostly like concessions...if you...then.... If you...have sex...at least wear a condom....

This can be readily seen in Jesus' own words when the Pharisees tried to trap him with an issue somewhat similar to the slavery issue. If asked about slavery, his answer may have been similar to this:
There is also the Christian ideal that our focus is not on earthly life, but heavenly, so earthly bondage is temporary. Along these same lines, NT scholar Raymond Brown has some interesting things to say on this issue in the Phillipians section of his <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0385247672/qid=1012697938/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_11_1/103-8954605-5908608" target="_blank">Intro to the NT</a>:

Finally, to the issue of morals. Here was my original comment:

This statement provoked quite a reaction, and well it should in my opinion. (P.S. - sorry for the extra letter I stuck in clarity. Spelling sure seems to bother a lot of peapole around ehre ).

I was asked to define nearly every word in the statement which I don't find necessary. However, I will attempt to define my views in more explicit detail. BTW, I think the "subjectivity" of Atheistic morals can already be seen in the name-calling and disagreement on exactly what these morals may be. Indeed, Michael goes so far as to say: "There are no "atheist morals.""

I believe he is correct. Every atheist may have his own unique set of "morals". This seems somewhat subjective and dependent on society to me.

From my own honest evaluation of atheistic values and thought, here are some of my observations:

An Atheist is:
* One who does not believe there is/are a/any God(s).
* One who does not believe in the supernatural.
* One who does not believe in life after death.
* One who believes that death ends all.
* One who, therefore, does not believe in an ultimate accounting/judging of our earthly actions toward one another and ourselves after death.

Without belief in a final accounting of our actions after death, then nothing is ultimately "wrong". Anything that improves our life is "ok", even if it happens to be at the expense of others. In order to be happy, I may have to conform somewhat to the values in my society (as mentioned by BobK). Therefore, if my society says slavery is bad, then I shouldn't own slaves. If my society says slavery is fine and I can make money to improve and enjoy my life (think ~150-200 years ago), then I will own all the slaves necessary to make myself happy. If it is ok by society and ok by my own arbitrary "morals" then why not?

All of this and more is why I state, "I do not ultimately see where subjective atheistic morals yield any more [clarity] on the issue of the morality of slavery than does Christianity."

Can an atheist really decry Christianity/religion (which is more than likely the ultimate issue here) when he/she realizes that there is no ultimate accounting for his/her earthly deeds, making anything perfectly allowable?

Haran

[ February 02, 2002: Message edited by: Haran ]</p>

hinduwoman

No one doubts that there are various kinds of slavery, some more beign. But the problem is slavery automatically means that someone is your master and you are property with whom he can do what he likes unless there are laws about it.

Simply tell me if you would have liked to be a slave in the Roman empire without freedom. Also imagine you are a female slave.

hinduwoman

Haran, most atheists have their own private thical system. For myself it is based on empathy --- I would not like to do things to others that I don't want done to me. Aslo I see the sense of morality in society: otherwise all would be anarchy.

Secondly religious fundamentalists try to impose their values on us and we strongly object to that.

Thirdly has the notion of being ultimately accountable to God created better morality? There do not seem to have been any dramatic improvement after europe became Christian. On the contrary, things became worse when it came to religious persecutions.

pug846

Haran,

Although I find your response regarding slavery completely under whelming, I’ll leave that for others to discuss. I would like to continue the discussion on morality, but this isn’t the forum to do such a thing. So, I have replied to your comments on morality <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=52&t=000039" target="_blank">here.</a>.

I would appreciate it if any other talk concerning morality wasn’t held in this forum, as this forum is for discussion regarding the Bible. Thanks.

[ February 02, 2002: Message edited by: pug846 ]</p>