The Moral Argument

[leroy]

the point is that the bible would be morally wrong only according to your own personal opinion, you can conclude that the bible is wrong, nor that God doesn't exist just because you personally don't like the implications


only by granting objective morality you could make a meaningful argument

If i have objective moral standard and find many things in the bible morally wrong, it means that your God does not exist, or at least is not the law giver.

No, but it will mean that there are some sound arguments against the divinity of the bible

 

[MarsCydonia]

this would be the argument against the divinity of the bible

p1 If the bible is divine (written by God) it would be morally good

p2 The bible condones morally wrong actions (slavery)

therefore the bible is not divine

P1 would be granted by most Christians, so if you prove P2 you would have a sound argument against the divinity of the bible.

the argument would make 2 assumptions

1 that objective morality exists,

2 that we can discover objective moral values by experience or intuition

most Christians would also grant these 2 assumptions.

this is why it would be a good argument,

You know what assumption this argument also makes? That slavery is morally wrong. Who cares what would be granted by most christians? Most christians use to grant that slavery was morally right. How do we determine which christians are right, those who accept slavery or those who reject it?

Try this argument:
P1 God is the source of objective morality and is perfectly, morally good
P2 The bible is the inspired and divine word of god.
C1 Therefore, from P1 and P2, everything the bible condones is morally good as god is morally good.
P3 The bible condones slavery
C2 Therefore, from C1 and P2, slavery is morally good (and Leroy's subjective opinion that slavery is wrong is false)

Guess how many christians would grant P1, P2 and P3?

P.S. Moved this from Leroy's equally idiotic Evolution Hates Atheists thread

 

[leroy]

MarsCydonia
You're confusing me with yourself again. The burden of proof would rest on the person making those assertions as fact.

well who is making assertions as fact?

[ leroy] wrote:
Maybe slavery is not objectively wrong in some contexts

Maybe slavery had a different connotation in the past

Maybe slavery was necessary to achieve a grater good

It is clear form my quotes that I am not asserting anything as fact, so at least according to your logic I don't have to carry any burden proof.

the question is, are you affirming as fact, that the bible is condoning slavery as we understand it today?..............if yes shouldn't you carry your burden?

 

[leroy]

You know what assumption this argument also makes? That slavery is morally wrong.

yes, that assumption is being made, as It was implicit in the other 2 assumptions that I mentioned,

the argument would make 2 assumptions

1 that objective morality exists,

2 that we can discover objective moral values by experience or intuition

Try this argument:
P1 God is the source of objective morality and is perfectly, morally good
P2 The bible is the inspired and divine word of god.
C1 Therefore, from P1 and P2, everything the bible condones is morally good as god is morally good.
P3 The bible condones slavery
C2 Therefore, from C1 and P2, slavery is morally good (and Leroy's subjective opinion that slavery is wrong is false)

Guess how many christians would grant P1, P2 and P3?

granted, if one grants P1,P2,P3 AND C1, one would also gave to grant C2.

but what is your point?

 

[MarsCydonia]

the question is, are you affirming as fact, that the bible is condoning slavery as we understand it today?..............if yes shouldn't you carry your burden?

The question is, what is Leroy's definition of "slavery"? Because you love to accuse others of playing word games but no one here changes the meaning of words like you do* (not your fault really, understanding the meaning of words require some degree of intelligence)

But yes Leroy, to other people who understand what slavery is, as understood today, the bible does condone slavery and that is a fact.

Just to clarify, are you saying the bible does not? If shown to condone slavery, should we consider this as evidence of a severe lack of knowledge on what the bible says on this subject?

Still, it depends on what Leroy's definition of "slavery" is, doesn't it?

granted, if one grants P1,P2,P3 AND C1, one would also gave to grant C2.

but what is your point?

Really? You didn't get the point? I'm sorry Leroy, I just do not know how to dumb it down further for you.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Try this argument:
P1 God is the source of objective morality and is perfectly, morally good
P2 The bible is the inspired and divine word of god.
C1 Therefore, from P1 and P2, everything the bible condones is morally good as god is morally good.
P3 The bible condones slavery
C2 Therefore, from C1 and P2, slavery is morally good (and Leroy's subjective opinion that slavery is wrong is false)

Guess how many christians would grant P1, P2 and P3?

granted, if one grants P1,P2,P3 AND C1, one would also gave to grant C2.

but what is your point?

That there can't be any such thing as objective morality since you disagree with the Bible (the "Word of God") despite being a Christian.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[leroy]

[is Leroy's definition of "slavery"? Because you love to accuse others of playing word games but no one here changes the meaning of words like you do* (not your fault really, understanding the meaning of words require some degree of intelligence)

But yes Leroy, to other people who understand what slavery is, as understood today, the bible does condone slavery and that is a fact.

Just to clarify, are you saying the bible does not? If shown to condone slavery, should we consider this as evidence of a severe lack of knowledge on what the bible says on this subject?

Still, it depends on what Leroy's definition of "slavery" is, doesn't it?

wrong my own personal definition of slavery is irrelevant, the relevant definition is the definition used by the authors of the bible,


I would define slavery as forcing someone to work for you against his will.

and I would call it morally wrong, but given that I did not wrote the bible, my own personal definition is not relevant

how did the author(s) of the bible defined slavery,?


will you prove it?

 

[leroy]

That there can't be any such thing as objective morality since you disagree with the Bible (the "Word of God") despite being a Christian.

Kindest regards,

James

How does disagreeing with the bible, automatically leads to there are no objective moral values?


many people disagree with the bible and they don't deny objective morality.


.....

If you what to know if I disagree with the bible, all you have to do is explain what does the bible mean when it uses the term slavery. ....... after you do that, I would tell you if I agree or disagree with the bible.




but keep in mind

even if I disagree with the bible>

1 that would t prove that the bible is wrong

2 nor that other Christians should also disagree

3 nor that I can not be a Christian

4 nor that objective morality doesn't excist

 

[Grumpy Santa]

How does disagreeing with the bible, automatically leads to there are no objective moral values?


many people disagree with the bible and they don't deny objective morality.


.....

If you what to know if I disagree with the bible, all you have to do is explain what does the bible mean when it uses the term slavery. ....... after you do that, I would tell you if I agree or disagree with the bible.




but keep in mind

even if I disagree with the bible>

1 that would t prove that the bible is wrong

2 nor that other Christians should also disagree

3 nor that I can not be a Christian

4 nor that objective morality doesn't excist

1 Interesting take. So if the bible says slavery is fine but you think it's wrong, does that make you wrong or the bible with regards to slavery?

2, 3, 4 agree, with the caveat on 4 being that the lack of evidence of an objective morality is completely irrelevant to the existence of an ancient holy text.

 

[leroy]

How does disagreeing with the bible, automatically leads to there are no objective moral values?


many people disagree with the bible and they don't deny objective morality.


.....

If you what to know if I disagree with the bible, all you have to do is explain what does the bible mean when it uses the term slavery. ....... after you do that, I would tell you if I agree or disagree with the bible.




but keep in mind

even if I disagree with the bible>

1 that would t prove that the bible is wrong

2 nor that other Christians should also disagree

3 nor that I can not be a Christian

4 nor that objective morality doesn't excist

1 Interesting take. So if the bible says slavery is fine but you think it's wrong, does that make you wrong or the bible with regards to slavery?

2, 3, 4 agree, with the caveat on 4 being that the lack of evidence of an objective morality is completely irrelevant to the existence of an ancient holy text.

It would imply that I personally don't grant the all bible as the word of God. .......................just that


I would still be a theist and a Christian


Other Christian might care less about my personal opinion and grant the bible as the word of God.

 

[Grumpy Santa]

It would imply that I personally don't grant the all bible as the word of God. .......................just that

I would still be a theist and a Christian

Other Christian might care less about my personal opinion and grant the bible as the word of God.

An excellent response in my opinion. Comes across as open and honest, I can respect that. It does beg a question, however... if you are personally willing to grant that all the bible isn't the word of God, how do you determine what is and what isn't? This could lead into me trying to claim you're "cherry picking" the bible, but I don't want to go there to be fair even though I suspect you're honest enough to admit that from the outside it can appear that way. I do think as a stand alone in light of what you said though that it's a fair question to ask.

 

[leroy]

It would imply that I personally don't grant the all bible as the word of God. .......................just that

I would still be a theist and a Christian

Other Christian might care less about my personal opinion and grant the bible as the word of God.

An excellent response in my opinion. Comes across as open and honest, I can respect that. It does beg a question, however... if you are personally willing to grant that all the bible isn't the word of God, how do you determine what is and what isn't? This could lead into me trying to claim you're "cherry picking" the bible, but I don't want to go there to be fair even though I suspect you're honest enough to admit that from the outside it can appear that way. I do think as a stand alone in light of what you said though that it's a fair question to ask.

Well it is impossible to know with certainty what is the word of God and what isn't, but the answer to your question would be because Jesus said so .

If Jesus claimed that something is the word of God, I would grant that as the word of God.


.the reason I believe that the old testament is the word of God is because I grant these 3 premises


1 Jesus is devine, whatever Jesus claimed to be true most be taken as true

2 Jesus claimed that the scriptures are the word of God

3 what Jesus called the scriptures corresponds to what we call the old testament

therefore the old testament is the word of God


As a Christian I am only committed to premise 1, premise 2 and 3 are probably true, but not certainly true. And granting p2 and p3 are not an important doctrines for Christianity

SO if you find an irreconcilable mistake in the bible I would simply deny premise 2 or 3. I don't have to throw all my faith.



I would argue that there is evidence for P1, but that would be a completely different discussion, did I answer your question?

 

[MarsCydonia]

wrong my own personal definition of slavery is irrelevant, the relevant definition is the definition used by the authors of the bible,

I would define slavery as forcing someone to work for you against his will.

and I would call it morally wrong, but given that I did not wrote the bible, my own personal definition is not relevant

how did the author(s) of the bible defined slavery,?

:facepalm:
Do you not realize how stupid that is? If the authors of the bible named slavery "happy fun times!!", it would not matter either.

Do you understand that the bible condones owning human beings as property? To be bought and passed of as inheritance?

Do you understand that the bible sanctions beating the human beings you own as property? Without the owner suffering any punishment if s/he dies as long as the death happens after "1 day or 2", because s/he is his property?

It would imply that I personally don't grant the all bible as the word of God. .......................just that

I would still be a theist and a Christian

Other Christian might care less about my personal opinion and grant the bible as the word of God.

You'd just be granting the parts where Jesus claims to be the son of god while rejecting the parts where Jesus asserts that the old testament is the word of god...

Christianity must be fun when it can be whatever someone wants it to be.

"I don't believe there is a god, that Jesus was a god or the son of god, did miracles, etc. but "Do unto others" is good advice, I must be a christian too!"

 

[leroy]

Do you not realize how stupid that is? If the authors of the bible named slavery "happy fun times!!", it would not matter either.

Yes, the connotation of the term slavery is relevant,

Do you understand that the bible condones owning human beings as property? To be bought and passed of as inheritance?

No I don't understand, as I made it clear, I am not too familiar with those verses.


where slaves they volunteers or where they kidnapped and force to work?

did slaves in the bible had rights? did they had legal protection against abusive masters?

this questions are relevant and have to be answered before making a moral judgment against the bible...............do you have the answer?

Do you understand that the bible sanctions beating the human beings you own as property?

No I don't understand it, this is why you are suppose to prove those statements that you are asserting as fact.


why cant you understand this>

I am not familiar with the texts that condone slavery, and even if I where, I don't have enough knowledge to comment on them.

 

[Steelmage99]

Do you not realize how stupid that is? If the authors of the bible named slavery "happy fun times!!", it would not matter either.

Yes, the connotation of the term slavery is relevant,

Do you understand that the bible condones owning human beings as property? To be bought and passed of as inheritance?

No I don't understand, as I made it clear, I am not too familiar with those verses.


where slaves they volunteers or where they kidnapped and force to work?

did slaves in the bible had rights? did they had legal protection against abusive masters?

this questions are relevant and have to be answered before making a moral judgment against the bible...............do you have the answer?

Do you understand that the bible sanctions beating the human beings you own as property?

No I don't understand it, this is why you are suppose to prove those statements that you are asserting as fact.


why cant you understand this>

I am not familiar with the texts that condone slavery, and even if I where, I don't have enough knowledge to comment on them.

Wouldn't this be about that time where you pick up a Bible and start reading what it says about slavery before you comment any further?

 

[MarsCydonia]

Yes, the connotation of the term slavery is relevant,

where slaves they volunteers or where they kidnapped and force to work?

did slaves in the bible had rights? did they had legal protection against abusive masters?

this questions are relevant and have to be answered before making a moral judgment against the bible...............do you have the answer?

See this is why you need to explain what is "Leroy's definition of slavery", because whatever can be shown about the bible, you would be able to say "this is not slavery under Leroy's definition of slavery".

Let's see what you would accept as being slavery then we'll know what we're supposed to show.

Everyone else here has an understanding of what slavery is (an understanding that is not everchanging like your definitions tend to be) and we all agree that the bible condones slavery.

Being uneducated about what is slavery only works for so long, especially coming from a christian.

I am not familiar with the texts that condone slavery, and even if I where, I don't have enough knowledge to comment on them.

Since when does a lack of knowlegde prevent you from commenting on something? :lol:

 

[leroy]

See this is why you need to explain what is "Leroy's definition of slavery", because whatever can be shown about the bible, you would be able to say "this is not slavery under Leroy's definition of slavery".

.

My personal definition of slavery is irrelevant, the only relevant definition is the definition used by the author of those texts..............why cant you understand this ?




So what did the authors of the bible meant when they used the term slavery? do you have the answer for this question?

 

[MarsCydonia]

My personal definition of slavery is irrelevant, the only relevant definition is the definition used by the author of those texts..............why cant you understand this ?

So what did the authors of the bible meant when they used the term slavery? do you have the answer for this question?

Why can't you understand that what authors called by slavery is what is actually irrelevant! Are you really this dumb?

The authors could "giving foot massages" to be slavery but you asserted that slavery is morally wrong. Not the bible authors, you did.

Everyone else agrees what slavery is and that it is morally wrong.

What difficulty are you having with recognizing what slavery is? What did you call "morally wrong"? I doubt you're actually this stupid because this is tremendously above your usual level of stupid.

 

[leroy]

My personal definition of slavery is irrelevant, the only relevant definition is the definition used by the author of those texts..............why cant you understand this ?

So what did the authors of the bible meant when they used the term slavery? do you have the answer for this question?

Why can't you understand that what authors called by slavery is what is actually irrelevant! Are you really this dumb?

The authors could "giving foot massages" to be slavery but you asserted that slavery is morally wrong. Not the bible authors, you did.

Everyone else agrees what slavery is and that it is morally wrong.

What difficulty are you having with recognizing what slavery is? What did you call "morally wrong"? I doubt you're actually this stupid because this is tremendously above your usual level of stupid.

I don't have time for your stupid word games.

1 I would argue that. Kidnapping someone and forcing him to work for you against his will is morally wrong


2 and I would argue that accepting a volunteer to work for you for free, in exchange for food and shelter, is morally ok (at least in some contexts)



both where called slaves in ancient times, and there are many other things that would be consider slavery, you might be surprised but many words have more than one definition and definitions change over time.


do you have anything else to add?

 

[MarsCydonia]

I don't have time for your stupid word games.

1 I would argue that. Kidnapping someone and forcing him to work for you against his will is morally wrong

2 and I would argue that accepting a volunteer to work for you for free, in exchange for food and shelter, is morally ok (at least in some contexts)

both where called slaves in ancient times, and there are many other things that would be consider slavery, you might be surprised but many words have more than one definition and definitions change over time.

do you have anything else to add?

And here I thought a lack of knowledge was supposed to prevent you from talking about things you are completely ignorant about? You're wrong again Leroy, just like you are nearly all the time...

In ancient times, just like today, "volunteer" were not slaves. There's something missing there that makes the difference. Are you really that moronic that you do not get it?

I'll put it in bold for you Leroy:
Is owning another human being as property morally wrong or "morally ok (at least in some contexts)"?

The bible condones owning human beings as property. This is a fact. You have to be deeply ignorant of the bible to not know this and profroundly lazy to not check it out for yourself after its been pointed out to you.

And you know what people (those who are not Leroy-minded at least) call owning human beings as property? They call it slavery.